Manchester United V Tottenham ESPN 5:30

CR 7

mangaroosh wrote: »

Must've missed the part where he indicates advantage, all I can see is him shrugging his shoulders after Gomes has placed the ball on the ground.

Will I Amnt

Iang87 wrote: »

nani celbrates the goal like he just scored from 30 yards. such a disgrace of a player.

He celebrated a match winning goal what did you want him to do,hang his head and stroll back to his own half

Iang87

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

When does he give advantage though? He keeps his hands down by his sides, which indicates Gomes asks him what to do, (i.e. Is it a free, or play on?) and he responds by just saying play on, not that there's an advantage to anyone.

first off its wrong celebrating a goal that screws a team out of a game. I watched liverpool birmingham last year and saw ngog dive to win a penalty. I turned off the match cos its just wrong why win if you have to cheat or in liverpools case in that game draw.

Secondly if he doesn't give the advantage then he should be like dropped from the premier league ref list for incompetence cos it means he misses a dive and a handball.

I should mention though i reckon talking about this with united fans is something like this

CR 7

Iang87 wrote: »

first off its wrong celebrating a goal that screws a team out of a game.

1. Not A Dive.
2. Not An Intentional Handball
3. Already 1-0.

Iang87

cambo2008 wrote: »

He celebrated a match winning goal what did you want him to do,hang his head and stroll back to his own half

i just think its disgraceful to celebrate a goal like that when you know its not right.

Although someone like nani probably assumed it was right cos he's that type of player

CR 7

Iang87 wrote: »

i just think its disgraceful to celebrate a goal like that when you know its not right.

Although someone like nani probably assumed it was right cos he's that type of player

:pac:

And that's the end of that chapter....

Iang87

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

1. Not A Dive.
2. Not An Intentional Handball

oh i'm sorry i though when someone falls over untouched its a foul and also thought if the ball hits your hand its also deemed a foul.

dude you've watched too many united games if you think these things are ok. Anyway i'm done i still think ye would have won the game i just think its wrong how it happened

Divorce Referendum

Iang87 wrote: »

oh i'm sorry i though when someone falls over untouched its a foul and also thought if the ball hits your hand its also deemed a foul.

dude you've watched too many united games if you think these things are ok. Anyway i'm done i still think ye would have won the game i just think its wrong how it happened

If you think it didnt have a bearing on the final result of the game Im not sure why its such a big deal to you. The ref didnt cover himself in glory but gomes is a bloody tool wouldnt you agree?. Play to the whistle and play the ball when the ref is gesturing to you to get on with it.

Will I Amnt

Iang87 wrote: »

i just think its disgraceful to celebrate a goal like that when you know its not right.

Although someone like nani probably assumed it was right cos he's that type of player

Yea cos every other footballer has that humility and respect

A Dub in Glasgo

Iang87 wrote: »

oh i'm sorry i though when someone falls over untouched its a foul and also thought if the ball hits your hand its also deemed a foul.

For the 2nd time (or more times?) in the thread, that is untrue. There are many reasons players fall over, only one of them should result in a booking. There are also many reasons a ball hits your hand, I think you mean hand to ball rather than ball to hand as the latter usually results in play on. The Nani incident was hand to ball and Gomes picks the ball up, the ref decided to play advantage whereby Gomes should kick the ball to one of his players.

daveyboy_1ie

Iang87 wrote: »

oh i'm sorry i though when someone falls over untouched its a foul and also thought if the ball hits your hand its also deemed a foul

I love the way you are selectively remembering what pieces of the passage you want to spout on about, I suppose the Kaboul foul on Nani a few seconds before the dive doesn't count? Even though if there was any claim for the goal not to be given this is the most important passage of play as it was the first incident that lead to this whole shambles. Not right that Nani or Gomes took the law into their own hands (and for once I agree with you, disgraceful behavior on both players behalf). To criticise a player because he scores what turns out to be a defining goal in a match is a little but much, no one has the right to tell someone when he can and cannot feel happy about an achievement, regardless of how legitimate you think his claims are.

mar-z

Iang87 wrote: »

or are you implying gomes throwin the ball like 3 yards from the incident was deemed enough advantage

Ok my one post on this topic (unless a question or useful comment is made relating to thiss post), Gomes actually brought the ball nearly ten yards forward and then threw it another couple. He then waited on the ball a number of seconds (haven't actually counted but I'll say roughly 5) before Nani shows up.

Now technically Gomes gained an advantage of both position and time on the ball, probably enough of both that there would only be a few complaints if it wasn't a goal scoring incident/near the goal. As it is it was harsh on spurs despite following the letter of the law.

As to the poster who points to the advantage in the Liverpool match (Iang87, I think), looking at that makes it seem very harsh on Gomes, the only thing I will say is that there is zero consistency in he advantage rule and I'm sure many refs would have said advantage was played with the Taylor cross. There seemed to be a lot of suprise (putting it nicely) that it was called back in the pub I was watching in so the ref is in a no win situation sometimes.

In summary, the decision was very harsh on Spurs while following the letter of the law. The main questions here have seemed to be: did the ref play advantage(yes, although he admitted he should have been more expressive, source is quoted in the last couple of pages on this thread); should he have called it back after talking to the linesman (no, not if he was playing advantage, yes otherwise); was an advantage had (this is open to interpretation, technically he did as I said earlier but in the spirit of the rule I'd probably say no); would this be as big a debate if it wasn't United but City,Liverpool,Spurs, etc? (probably a United fan would bring it up where they'd be told that they get so many decisions that their opinion doesn't count - if you haven't guessed, United fan here)

Nalz

We love u Nani we

do

Blitzkrieger

My argument below relies on the fact that Nani was fouled in the penalty area. If you didn't see it, watch the replay - Kaboul clearly pulled him back twice.

TBH, I think Spurs were lucky. It should have been a penalty and a second yellow card for Kaboul. This would have seen Kaboul suspended for a match when Spurs already have two centre backs out injured. Honestly, who would prefer the possibility of salving a draw late on in the game with 10 men, for facing a penalty and having your centre back suspended? As opposed to going 2-0 down late on in a game you were losing anyway?

The bookies had Spurs at 5/1 to win the game. Spurs weren't robbed - they were 2nd favorites from the start. IMO though, the odds shouldn't have been that long.

Almost everything that happened after the penalty incident was a f*ck up. Nani did go down easily (w**ker) and he did handle the ball. But wtf was Gomes at? If he thought it was a free kick, why did he bring it forward 12 yards? The ref didn't stop play because Spurs had the ball. If Gomes had launced a quick counter Spurs might have been laughing.

Bottom line is : play to the whistle. The whistle never went so Nani was entitled to play the ball.

So when the dust settles the ref might get a slap on the wrist but should be okay - he's a highly thought of young referee. It's difficult these days to give a decision United's way and not get dropped to the Championship, but he should survive. And Spurs will be able to select Kaboul for their next match, having lost a game they were losing anyway, and were massive underdogs with the bookies to win.

Nodody died.

GreeBo

The advantage is that Spurs retained possession of the ball. There were countless examples of this over the weekend, a handball in midfield yesterday by Sunderland but the ball made it to Andy Farrell so play on.
If Farrell had then scored an OG thats his problem, he had the ball.

jacool

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

The bookies had Spurs at 5/1 to win the game. Spurs weren't robbed - they were 2nd favorites from the start. IMO though, the odds shouldn't have been that long.

Nani did go down easily (w**ker) and he did handle the ball. But wtf was Gomes at? If he thought it was a free kick, why did he bring it forward 12 yards?

Bottom line is : play to the whistle. The whistle never went so Nani was entitled to play the ball.

So when the dust settles the ref might get a slap on the wrist but should be okay - he's a highly thought of young referee.

Nodody died.

1. If you are saying that only favourites should win football matches then whey play them at all?
2. Let me know if this was the only time that a free-kick wasn't taken from the actual spot this weekend. (Even if this wasn't a free-kick after all)
3. Play to the whistle implies that you can now do anything as long as the referee doesn't blow.
4. This is the same referee who missed Tottenham's "goal" in 2005.
Combining 3 and 4 shows how corrupt things can become. The definition of a goal in the rules is "the ball must pass completely over the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar and no rules may be violated on the play ". This may now have to be re-defined as "the ball must pass completely over the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar and no rules may be violated on the play and the referee blows his whistle to confirm same". I'm ignoring the Reading-Watford game here where the ball didn't cross the line but a goal was awarded!
5. Who is dody? Because I know that the dodo died, then dodi died and di died and that dido is in hiding! (Sorry, stole that joke.)

Mitch Connor

jacool wrote: »

1. If you are saying that only favourites should win football matches then whey play them at all?
2. Let me know if this was the only time that a free-kick wasn't taken from the actual spot this weekend. (Even if this wasn't a free-kick after all)
3. Play to the whistle implies that you can now do anything as long as the referee doesn't blow.
4. This is the same referee who missed Tottenham's "goal" in 2005.
Combining 3 and 4 shows how corrupt things can become. The definition of a goal in the rules is "the ball must pass completely over the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar and no rules may be violated on the play ". This may now have to be re-defined as "the ball must pass completely over the goal line between the goal posts and under the crossbar and no rules may be violated on the play and the referee blows his whistle to confirm same". I'm ignoring the Reading-Watford game here where the ball didn't cross the line but a goal was awarded!
5. Who is dody? Because I know that the dodo died, then dodi died and di died and that dido is in hiding! (Sorry, stole that joke.)

On the 4th one, that basically IS the rule. If the ref doesn't signal a goal has been scored, it hasn't been.

roosh

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

aaaah! ambiguously shrugging the shoulders after player has placed the ball for a free = clear, and timely indication that advantage should be played after it is clear there is confusion about the decision.

still, United goal = no spurs advantage, therefore play should have been brought back

Fuhrer

mangaroosh wrote: »

aaaah! ambiguously shrugging the shoulders after player has placed the ball for a free = clear, and timely indication that advantage should be played after it is clear there is confusion about the decision.

If it was a free why did Gomes walk out so far with the ball?

Blitzkrieger

jacool wrote: »

1. If you are saying that only favourites should win football matches then whey play them at all?

I don't like the way your selective quoting completely changes the context of what I said. To avoid another comment like above, let me clarify by saying I'm glad you didn't blindly quote my entire post, but please don't change the context.






Oh, and what a ridiculous thing to say. I'm new to this forum so I'll clarify : we all know the odds the bookies quote are rarely the true odds of a game. What the bookies are not, is fools. For them to give that price on Spurs, they must be trying to entice money on what they see as a sucker bet. A lot of highly paid people, much better at predicting matches than you or me, must have thought Spurs had little or no chance of winning. I didn't actually agree myself, but that was the point I was making.....

roosh

mar-z wrote: »

Ok my one post on this topic (unless a question or useful comment is made relating to thiss post), Gomes actually brought the ball nearly ten yards forward and then threw it another couple. He then waited on the ball a number of seconds (haven't actually counted but I'll say roughly 5) before Nani shows up.

Now technically Gomes gained an advantage of both position and time on the ball, probably enough of both that there would only be a few complaints if it wasn't a goal scoring incident/near the goal. As it is it was harsh on spurs despite following the letter of the law.

As to the poster who points to the advantage in the Liverpool match (Iang87, I think), looking at that makes it seem very harsh on Gomes, the only thing I will say is that there is zero consistency in he advantage rule and I'm sure many refs would have said advantage was played with the Taylor cross. There seemed to be a lot of suprise (putting it nicely) that it was called back in the pub I was watching in so the ref is in a no win situation sometimes.

In summary, the decision was very harsh on Spurs while following the letter of the law. The main questions here have seemed to be: did the ref play advantage(yes, although he admitted he should have been more expressive, source is quoted in the last couple of pages on this thread); should he have called it back after talking to the linesman (no, not if he was playing advantage, yes otherwise); was an advantage had (this is open to interpretation, technically he did as I said earlier but in the spirit of the rule I'd probably say no); would this be as big a debate if it wasn't United but City,Liverpool,Spurs, etc? (probably a United fan would bring it up where they'd be told that they get so many decisions that their opinion doesn't count - if you haven't guessed, United fan here)

Ultimately it was entirely at the referee's discretion whether or not to award the goal, and he erred against the team that should have been given advantage.

He claims he was playing advantage, yet clearly didn't signal so, but the question remains was an advantage gained?

As you mentioned technically it could be argued that Gomes gained an advantage by being allowed to continue the game from his hands. However, due to the referee's poor communication, Gomes assumed that it was a free-kick, because the nature of the handball was such that there could hardly have been any other sensible decision.

This confusion meant that Gomes didn't get an advantage bcos it was unclear, as to what decision the referee had made. The referee's poor commuication meant that no advantage was accrued, and once this had become clear, it should have been brought back by the ref, to correct his mistake.

Ultimately the ref may have thought he had given an advantage, but it then becomes clear that there no actual advantage had been accred, but rather a perceived advantage.

roosh

GreeBo wrote: »

The advantage is that Spurs retained possession of the ball. There were countless examples of this over the weekend, a handball in midfield yesterday by Sunderland but the ball made it to Andy Farrell so play on.
If Farrell had then scored an OG thats his problem, he had the ball.

In the liverpool game yesterday, not sure if it was for liverpool or Bolton, but I'll say Bolton. A liverpool player committed a foul, and the ball broke wide for a Bolton player who was in an excellent position to cross, but the ref brought it back because Bolton had no players in the Box and wouldn't really have gained an advantage.

It's entirely at the ref's discretion and in this case Clattenburg's lack of communication meant no actual advantage was accrued. When this was realised he should have disallowed the goal, bcos instead of giving the advantage to Spurs, he erred on the side of United.

roosh

Fuhrer wrote: »

If it was a free why did Gomes walk out so far with the ball?

Free kick inside the penalty area
Direct or indirect free kick to the defending team:
• all opponents must be at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball
• all opponents must remain outside the penalty area until the ball is in play
• the ball is in play when it is kicked directly out of the penalty area
• a free kick awarded in the goal area may be taken from any point inside
that area

FIFA Laws of the Game 2010/11

Mitch Connor

mangaroosh wrote: »

FIFA Laws of the Game 2010/11

is the goal area the penalty area or the 6 yard box?

roosh

Mitch Connor wrote: »

is the goal area the penalty area or the 6 yard box?

good question!

Peyton Manning

mangaroosh wrote: »

FIFA Laws of the Game 2010/11

Good thing it wasn't a free and no official had signalled for one then.

roosh

Mitch Connor wrote: »

is the goal area the penalty area or the 6 yard box?

byd Box, you're right

Mitch Connor

mangaroosh wrote: »

good question!

thanks.

Fuhrer

In a semi-related question, if a keeper picks up a back pass in the goal area, is it still an indirect free kick or a penalty?

Mitch Connor

Fuhrer wrote: »

In a semi-related question, if a keeper picks up a back pass in the goal area, is it still an indirect free kick or a penalty?

indirect free (unless it changed in the summer, which I don't think it did)

roosh

Fuhrer wrote: »

If it was a free why did Gomes walk out so far with the ball?

back to what I was going to write originally.

why do players try to gain as many yards as possible, when taking a throw? why do players place the ball outside the arc when taking a corner? Why do players try to move free-kicks forward?

everdead.ie

mangaroosh wrote: »

back to what I was going to write originally.

why do players try to gain as many yards as possible, when taking a throw? why do players place the ball outside the arc when taking a corner? Why do players try to move free-kicks forward?

I thought it was more to do with nani lying on the floor where the free would of been and us wanting to go quickly

The Muppet

everdead.ie wrote: »

I thought it was more to do with nano lying on the floor where the free would of been and us wanting to go quickly

Which Free is this? If ye wanted to go quickly what prevented Gomez from kicking the ball from his hands when he had it?

everdead.ie

The Muppet wrote: »

Which Free is this? If ye wanted to go quickly what prevented Gomez from kicking the ball from his hands when he had it?

The free Gomes thought we had gotten if he thinks it's a free he can't take it from his hands

Fuhrer

everdead.ie wrote: »

The free Gomes thought we had gotten if he thinks it's a free he can't take it from his hands

He also has to take it where it happened, not 10 yards further on.

everdead.ie

Fuhrer wrote: »

He also has to take it where it happened, not 10 yards further on.

Yes but I'm just saying I'd imagine he wanted to take it quickly and Nani was lying on the ground so he couldn't take it from there. I doubt we will ever know exactly what was happening there to be honest I can only guess

Fuhrer

everdead.ie wrote: »

Yes but I'm just saying I'd imagine he wanted to take it quickly and Nani was lying on the ground so he couldn't take it from there.

So he can take it 10 yards further on?

everdead.ie

Fuhrer wrote: »

So he can take it 10 yards further on?

Sorry just edited my above post as I said I can only guess what was going on but I imagine he was trying to steal the yards

roosh

everdead.ie wrote: »

I thought it was more to do with nani lying on the floor where the free would of been and us wanting to go quickly

that would be one of the reasons why playes take free's from the incorrect position

homerjay2005

not sure if already posted but this should clear up any doubt that spurs were hard done by. refs first mistake was not to award the penalty and what would have been a 2nd yellow for the defender. its a bit rich people are still saying spurs were robbed looking at this and then considering it took gomes 12 seconds to take a free kick that never was given.

L'prof

homerjay2005 wrote: »

not sure if already posted but this should clear up any doubt that spurs were hard done by. refs first mistake was not to award the penalty and what would have been a 2nd yellow for the defender. its a bit rich people are still saying spurs were robbed looking at this and then considering it took gomes 12 seconds to take a free kick that never was given.

I don't think you'll find many here saying that Spurs were robbed. Penalty decisions like that are often turned away too.

s_carnage

Clears a bit up:

REFEREE Mark Clattenburg will stick by his controversial decision to let Nani's goal stand, justified by the fact that he saw the Manchester United winger handle the ball and played advantage.

Clattenburg has come under fire from Harry Redknapp, who said that the referee had "made a real cock-up" in the aftermath of Spurs' defeat at Old Trafford and would "make up a story" to get out of it.

But Clattenburg has told friends that he is happy with the decision and the only reason that he did not appear on television to explain it is because match officials are discouraged from doing so by the referees' organisation, Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL).

There was strong criticism of Clattenburg by members of the Spurs coaching staff and some pushing and shoving in the Old Trafford tunnel after the game, although no further action will be taken.

It is expected that PGMOL will ask retired referees Alan Wiley and Steve Bennett to defend and explain Clattenburg's decision over the next few days.

They will also address the late flag after the goal by assistant Simon Beck that came in for criticism on 'Match of the Day' on Saturday night. Gary Lineker suggested that Beck was flagging late in order to cover himself.

However, Beck held the flag up straight without 'agitating', which indicated that he needed to talk to the referee. He was not flagging for the original handball.

There is frustration in the refereeing fraternity that even the BBC's top pundits do not know basic rules of the game.

Clattenburg has said in private that he saw the Nani handball, but because goalkeeper Heurelho Gomes had the ball in his hand he played advantage. Spurs were one goal down with six minutes to play and Clattenburg decided they would be best served by being able to clear the ball upfield. Given that Gomes had the ball in his hands, the linesman was not obliged to flag for the Nani handball.

Even before Gomes put the ball down, the game was live and Nani was in his rights to score. If there was one criticism that Clattenburg has admitted that he accepts, it was that he should have been more demonstrative about telling Gomes and the Spurs players he was playing advantage.

In the immediate aftermath of the goal, Beck raised his flag to call Clattenburg over. He asked the referee whether he had seen the handball. Clattenburg replied that he had and that he had played advantage. As a result, the goal was allowed to stand.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/farce-goal-ref-sticks-to-his-guns-2402061.html

everdead.ie

s_carnage wrote: »

Clears a bit up:



http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/farce-goal-ref-sticks-to-his-guns-2402061.html

It's good to see the ref to come out strange though as I would of thought if it was advantage he would of called back play but it is good to see him come out and explain the situation

Ush1

"it was that he should have been more demonstrative about telling Gomes and the Spurs players he was playing advantage."

:pac:
Oh right, so he left out the ACTUAL important part of the decision. You know, the informing the players and what not.

Fuhrer

Ush1 wrote: »

"it was that he should have been more demonstrative about telling Gomes and the Spurs players he was playing advantage."

:pac:
Oh right, so he left out the ACTUAL important part of the decision. You know, the informing the players and what not.

He did inform the players, if it was a Free Kick he would have blown his whistle. He didnt so they should have played on.

roosh

homerjay2005 wrote: »

not sure if already posted but this should clear up any doubt that spurs were hard done by. refs first mistake was not to award the penalty and what would have been a 2nd yellow for the defender. its a bit rich people are still saying spurs were robbed looking at this and then considering it took gomes 12 seconds to take a free kick that never was given.

it's not that Spurs were robbed, it's that the ref made a series of absolutely disgraceful decisions.

The only incorrect outcome was to allow the goal to stand, after consulting with his linesman. If the linesman told him it should have been a penalty, award the penalty, but it would appear that it was the handball that was discussed, in which case the free-kick should have been awarded.

roosh

Fuhrer wrote: »

He did inform the players, if it was a Free Kick he would have blown his whistle. He didnt so they should have played on.

Except he then consulted his linesman and was informed that it was a handball, which he claims to have seen but did not indicate he was playing advantage.

If he was playing advantage, it became abundantly clear that no advantage had been accrued, so he should have brought play back for the free-kick, or the penalty, but seeing as how he adjudged it not to have been a penalty, but by his own admission adjudged it to have been handball (hence the "advantage") it should have been a free-kick to spurs.

jacool

Football rules: Advantage being offered by referee.
Even after a foul, a ref may allow play to continue sometimes. He will look to see if the team that would have been awarded the free-kick has an advantage in playing on. To signal that he is waving play on, he will extend both arms out in front of his body.

Just looked at the video and at no point does he signal this.
"Clattenburg has said in private that he saw the Nani handball, but because goalkeeper Heurelho Gomes had the ball in his hand he played advantage. Spurs were one goal down with six minutes to play and Clattenburg decided they would be best served by being able to clear the ball upfield."

Referee error looks like to me - he has to demonstrate he is giving advantage since he has said that he was playing advantage.

Mitch Connor

mangaroosh wrote: »

The only incorrect outcome was to allow the goal to stand, after consulting with his linesman.

How do you come to that conclusion - the linesman provided no new information to the ref, so why would he change his decision - this isn't the Scottish League...

Wile E. Coyote

jacool wrote: »

Referee error looks like to me - he has to demonstrate he is giving advantage since he has said that he was playing advantage.

Goalkeeper error - he should play to the whistle. It's not his job to decide if a free kick should be awarded.