Manchester United V Tottenham ESPN 5:30

Ush1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The ref is partially at fault.

Gomes is certainly partially at fault (simple fact - the whistle was not blown, no free was given, Gomes was an idiot for placing the ball down)

Nani was not at fault.

The ref was the whole cause of the confusion. Gomes looked to him for a decision so it was the blind leading the blind.

Fuhrer

Ush1 wrote: »

The ref was the whole cause of the confusion. Gomes looked to him for a decision so it was the blind leading the blind.

No, Gomes is the cause of the confusion. Everytime theres an advantage played now does everyone have to stop what they're doing, turn to the ref and ask him to clarify?

No, no whistle, play the **** on.

Jesus.

Ush1

Fuhrer wrote: »

No, Gomes is the cause of the confusion. Everytime theres an advantage played now does everyone have to stop what they're doing, turn to the ref and ask him to clarify?

No, no whistle, play the **** on.

Jesus.

Yes, the ref does have to make clear he is playing advantage. As I said, huge difference between no free kick and playing advantage, the ref should have been clearer on this as he said himself.

If it isn't clear to players what the decision is from the ref they are bound to make mistakes themselves.

greendom

Fuhrer wrote: »

No, Gomes is the cause of the confusion. Everytime theres an advantage played now does everyone have to stop what they're doing, turn to the ref and ask him to clarify?

No, no whistle, play the **** on.

Jesus.

Did you actually see the incident? The game was stopped - Nani had his hands on the non-moving ball. It was a very unusual situation from which to play an advantage (normally it's done while the game is moving and the ref doesn't want to break up play) and if that was the ref's intention he needed to make it perfectly clear. He didn't and is therefore at fault.

Fuhrer

greendom wrote: »

Did you actually see the incident? The game was stopped

I did, did you?


At what point was the game stopped?

greendom

Fuhrer wrote: »

I did, did you?


At what point was the game stopped?

When Nani was lying on the ground holding onto the ball. Was that a serious question?

Professey Chin

greendom wrote: »

The ref has to take the blame as much if not more than the keeper. For me it was principally an issue of communication. Gomes had more than 15,000 people directly behind him and 70,000 all around him, the vast majority baying for a penalty. If the ref had blown, it's possible that Gomez wouldn't have heard it. He made an assumption based on the normal rules of the game, that a free kick had been awarded. If the ref had been a bit clearer with regard to what was going on, Gomes would have been delighted to boot the ball away with his hands.

That still doesnt explain why he thought he could pick the ball,run to the edge of his area and then put it down for a free 10 yards away from the handball area just because his team were slow going forward.

I know we're going in circles but nobodys actually answered this yet!

Mitch Connor

greendom wrote: »

When Nani was lying on the ground holding onto the ball. Was that a serious question?

when he touched the ball, not held.... also, the game was not stopped.

greendom

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

That still doesnt explain why he thought he could pick the ball,run to the edge of his area and then put it down for a free 10 yards away from the handball area just because his team were slow going forward.

I agree with this, he took the kick from completely the wrong spot.

Professey Chin

greendom wrote: »

When Nani was lying on the ground holding onto the ball. Was that a serious question?

It wasnt stopped.No whistle went.Gomes picked the ball and went up by the edge of his box

Fuhrer

greendom wrote: »

When Nani was lying on the ground holding onto the ball. Was that a serious question?

Yes it was a serious question, you seem to neither understand playing advantage or even the basic when a game is stopped

Ush1

So the two options are;

1. The ref didn't see the most blatant handball in history(hence why the linesman flagged and asked him, probably in disbelief at the ref).

or

2. He did see it and didn't articulate that he was playing advantage to Spurs players, or anyone(it's this one, the ref has said it).

greendom

I accept that the ref hadn't stopped the game but how do I not understand the advantage rule ?

Mitch Connor

Ush1 wrote: »

So the two options are;

1. The ref didn't see the most blatant handball in history(hence why the linesman flagged and asked him, probably in disbelief at the ref).

Lack of understanding on your part. the lino did not flag for a handball. He would have waved the flag for that, not simply raise it as he did. Raising indicates he wants to talk to the ref, not signal for a foul.

The Muppet

Ush1 wrote: »

If it isn't clear to players what the decision is from the ref they are bound to make mistakes themselves.

If the ref blows his whistle the game stops , if he doesn't you play on, Is that not clear enough for everyone?

Ush1

The Muppet wrote: »

If the ref blows his whistle the game stops , if he doesn't you play on, Is that not clear enough for everyone?

No, the ref has to indicate he is playing advantage, otherwise Nani commited no foul.

cournioni

greendom wrote: »

Major difference between the 2 was that the penalty incident wasn't clear cut. They have been given for that but they have been denied also. Nani had his hands all over the ball and there was absolutely no doubt that a free-kick for hand ball should have been given (once the penalty had been denied)

The ref has to take the blame as much if not more than the keeper. For me it was principally an issue of communication. Gomes had more than 15,000 people directly behind him and 70,000 all around him, the vast majority baying for a penalty. If the ref had blown, it's possible that Gomez wouldn't have heard it. He made an assumption based on the normal rules of the game, that a free kick had been awarded. If the ref had been a bit clearer with regard to what was going on, Gomes would have been delighted to boot the ball away with his hands.

It must have been pretty clear cut if the vast majority of 70000 people were baying for a penalty. You've just said it yourself. Define clear cut in both incidents.

The ref should take alot of the blame both for not giving the penalty and then not giving a free for Nani's hand ball. He is not the reason that United went 2-0 up though. That is Gomes' fault and no one elses, he didn't play to the whistle which is an extremely basic error on his part.

Ush1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Lack of understanding on your part. the lino did not flag for a handball. He would have waved the flag for that, not simply raise it as he did. Raising indicates he wants to talk to the ref, not signal for a foul.

Yeah I know. Lack of understanding on your part. Read my post again. He has to tell the ref he saw a handball, because of the refs lack of input on the game, the linesman assumed the ref needed to be told. That's the only reason I can think the linesman said it to the ref, unless he just fancied a random chat with him you reckon?

Mitch Connor

Ush1 wrote: »

Yeah I know. Lack of understanding on your part. Read my post again. He has to tell the ref he saw a handball, because of the refs lack of input on the game, the linesman assumed the ref needed to be told. That's the only reason I can think the linesman said it to the ref, unless he just fancied a random chat with him you reckon?

Well yeah - given the circumstances (spurs players arguing with him) I think a chat between the two was what should have occurred.

Simple fact, you said he flagged for the handball, by the actions taken, he did not.

The Muppet

Ush1 wrote: »

No, the ref has to indicate he is playing advantage, otherwise Nani commited no foul.

Rubbish

Ush1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Well yeah - given the circumstances (spurs players arguing with him) I think a chat between the two was what should have occurred.

Simple fact, you said he flagged for the handball, by the actions taken, he did not.

He did flag for the handball though. I didn't say he waved the flag for it. He flagged so he could ask the ref if he seen it. What do you think the conversation entailed?

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.

Mitch Connor

The Muppet wrote: »

Rubbish

I don't think it is.

There is a signal (both arms extended) for 'Play on', which the ref did not do. Seemingly he said 'Play on' to the players, but he did not perform the, maybe, required, gestures, which worked to confuse the matter.

In reality, Gomes should have played on as there was no whistle to stop the game, but the ref didn't help the situation. Both are at fault.

Fuhrer

Ush1 wrote: »

He did flag for the handball though.

He didnt.


He didnt raise his flag til after the goal was scored.


If he was flagging for the handball, he would have flagged after the handball

Mitch Connor

Ush1 wrote: »

He did flag for the handball though. I didn't say he waved the flag for it. He flagged so he could ask the ref if he seen it. What do you think the conversation entailed?

So he raised his flag to call the ref over, as I said. Not to signal for the handball, which is what you said.

Thank you for proving me right.

greendom

cournioni wrote: »

It must have been pretty clear cut if the vast majority of 70000 people were baying for a penalty. You've just said it yourself. Define clear cut in both incidents.

The ref should take alot of the blame both for not giving the penalty and then not giving a free for Nani's hand ball. He is not the reason that United went 2-0 up though. That is Gomes' fault and no one elses, he didn't play to the whistle which is an extremely basic error on his part.

Just because the vast majority of home fans believe it to be (or want) a penalty doesn't make it so. With the penalty incident it looked like there may have been physical contact to cause Nani to fall over, but it's by no means certain or clear cut. What was clear cut was Nani's hand on the ball. Or as 'Arry so eloquently put it

'E 'ad 'is 'ands on the ball. 'E 'andled the ball. It was 'andball

Mr Alan

The Muppet wrote: »

Rubbish

Actually no. Tis in the rules, clear as day (they have been shown here), if the ref is playing advantage, as he was in this instance, he needs to indicate so by raising both his arms outward in front of him-he didn't do that.

Gomes made a balls of the situation, but the ref played a major part.

Ush1

The Muppet wrote: »

Rubbish

Brilliant counter argument there.

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.

Ush1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So he raised his flag to call the ref over, as I said. Not to signal for the handball, which is what you said.

Thank you for proving me right.

No I didn't say that. He raised his flag for the handball, which is true.

Ush1

Fuhrer wrote: »

He didnt.


He didnt raise his flag til after the goal was scored.


If he was flagging for the handball, he would have flagged after the handball

Right, well by flagging I meant raising his flag. To inform the ref of the handball, in disbelief of what he was watching.

Mitch Connor

Ush1 wrote: »

No I didn't say that. He raised his flag for the handball, which is true.

It still isn't true.

He raised he flag to call the ref over for a converstation (about the handball). He didn't raise he flag to indicate the handball had occurred, which is what you said.

He raised his flag to signal he wanted to talk to the ref, not to indicate a foul.

Ush1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It still isn't true.

He raised he flag to call the ref over for a converstation (about the handball). He didn't raise he flag to indicate the handball had occurred, which is what you said.

He raised his flag to signal he wanted to talk to the ref, not to indicate a foul.

This is what I said. Cheers.

Fuhrer

Ush1 wrote: »

This is what I said. Cheers.

No it isnt.

cournioni

greendom wrote: »

Just because the vast majority of home fans believe it to be (or want) a penalty doesn't make it so. With the penalty incident it looked like there may have been physical contact to cause Nani to fall over, but it's by no means certain or clear cut. What was clear cut was Nani's hand on the ball. Or as 'Arry so eloquently put it

...and just because you and the vast majority of Spurs fans believe it to be (or want) a free kick doesn't make it so either. Nani fell on top of the ball originally when he was tripped, it was not clear cut that it was a deliberate handball until you looked at the replays. Of which there have been many which have possibly clouded your judgement of the incident in real time.

Like I said, the referee was to blame for not giving a penalty for the trip on Nani. He was also to blame for not giving a free to Spurs for the hand ball. Neither were given, so you have to play to the whistle.

Simples.

Ush1

Fuhrer wrote: »

No it isnt.

1. The ref didn't see the most blatant handball in history(hence why the linesman flagged and asked him, probably in disbelief at the ref).

This is what happened.

Professey Chin

Gomes hits out at ref

Heurelho Gomes has slammed referee Mark Clattenburg for not making his instructions clear at Old Trafford on Saturday.

Tottenham were outraged as a disputable strike from Manchester United winger Nani was allowed by Clattenburg to seal a 2-0 victory for the Red Devils.

The Portugal international prodded the ball home after Spurs goalkeeper Gomes placed the ball on the ground feeling a free-kick had been awarded by the official for a handball by the United player.

Clattenburg, however, allowed the goal to stand, having seemingly invited Tottenham to play on.

But Gomes feels the referee did not clearly communicate his instructions, and insists there is no way he did not see Nani's handball.

"In my opinion, the whole stadium saw what happened," said Gomes in The Sun. "It is impossible the ref did not see the handball.

"He did not gesture in any way to play on, like you would normally expect. When I put the ball down on the floor, he started gesturing with his shoulders.

"He is supposed to use his hands. It was not clear to anyone. It was only when I saw Scholes shouting at Nani to shoot that I reacted.

"The biggest mistake was not being clear afterwards. Maybe he did not have to give the foul but you have to be clear. He only gestured after I put the ball down.

"Nani stopped the game with his hands but this is not basketball."

The Brazilian shot-stopper maintains that, as far as he is concerned, his own actions were justified.

"I feel bad, as I let in a goal. But I would react the same again," he added.

"The ref was not clear. He gesticulated with his shoulders and barely moved his arms. He was not able to explain and show to anyone in the stadium what was going on.

"Even the linesman was confused. He told me he did not know what the ref gave.

"He said he saw the handball and told me to go back to the goal, that he would tell the ref what he saw."

Linky
Why would he do the same again?

Mitch Connor

Ush1 wrote: »

This is what happened.

The Ref DID see the handball though, so what are you talking about?

roosh

Le King wrote: »

Advantage was played at the discretion of the referee. If the whistle wasn't blown what the hell do you think happened? United were out of position, the referee was giving Gomes the chance to kick the ball up the field while 5/6 United players were in or around the Spurs box. Spurs would of then had a numerical advantage going forward. It took about 10 seconds for Gomes to wake up, all this during the advantage period. The referee was 100% correct here.

I agree that the ref tried to play advantage, and that spurs had a perceived advantage by allowing Gomes to play the ball from his hands. However, that wasn't the end of the incident. Gomes placed the ball for what he understandably thought was a free-kick, for what was a blatant handball, and largely due to the referee's (admitted) lack of communication. In the mind of the referee, he still perceived that spurs had an advantage, hence his shrug of the shoulders when Gomes was looking for a whistle. Even when he awarded the goal he may still have believed that Spurs had been awarded the advantage. That wasn't the end of the incident however.

His linesman flagged to talk to him. At this point it becomes abundantly clear that Gomes thought it was a free-kick, and that what the referee perceived as an advantage, was not in fact an actual advantage, in-part due to his own (admitted) lack of communication. At this point he is free to exercise his discretion once again, just as he did in not awarding a free-kick for a blatant and deliberate handball. In the time between being flagged by his linesman, and ultimately awarding the goal, he can decide whether or not spurs actually gained an advantage during the passage of play.

The passage of play directly resulted in Spurs conceding a goal. If the referee deems an advantage to have been gained by that, then the goal should be awarded. If, on the other hand - and I believe this can be the only correct assessment - that he deems a passage of play that directly leads to conceding a goal, does not constitute the accrual of an advantage, then he should bring the play back for the original offence, which advantage was awarded for.

Le King wrote: »

What do you want? Forty odd passes before the advantage was over. What if this happened in the middle of the pitch. Do you think the referee is going to allow a player that long before he decides what to do with the ball?Absolutely not.

If a player had stopped a rolling ball with his hand, or had prevented the ball from going out of play, by placing a hand on it for 3-4 seconds, in the middle of the field, I have no doubt that the ref would have immediately blown for a free (almost instantly) and possibly even booked the player that committed an offence.

Le King wrote: »

While your complaining about this what about that offside goal your lot scored a couple of weeks ago? Where is the big deal there?

I'm not sure that is entirely releant to the situation being discussed. I will however say that according to a sensible interpretation of the rules, the goal was awarded, because Gallas was not interfering with play.

It is the ref's "sensible" interpretation of the rules, which I am questioning here, namely his interpretation that the passage of play, in which he claimed he was playing advantage, ultimately resulted in an advantage for spurs - with the concession of a goal.

Le King wrote: »

Your keeper isn't very bright. Deal with it. Nothing to do with refereeing here.

Gomes' intellectual prowess isn't of major concern to me, as I believe he is a fantastic goalkeeper. I agree that he should have played to the whistle, however, it has everything to do with the ref, bcos ultimately it was down to his discretion not to play "advantage", and it was down to his discretion to decide whether a passage of play that directly resulted in the concession of a goal, constituted an advantage - or not as I think the case may be.

greendom

cournioni wrote: »

...and just because you and the vast majority of Spurs fans believe it to be (or want) a free kick doesn't make it so either. Nani fell on top of the ball originally when he was tripped, it was not clear cut that it was a deliberate handball until you looked at the replays. Of which there have been many which have possibly clouded your judgement of the incident in real time.

Like I said, the referee was to blame for not giving a penalty for the trip on Nani. He was also to blame for not giving a free to Spurs for the hand ball. Neither were given, so you have to play to the whistle.

Simples.

So you think Nani's hand ball was accidental. I really hadn't considered that. I thought it was a deliberate act either to pick up the ball to take the penalty he thought was coming or in a fit of pique for not getting it

Yes it would be simple if you were playing in a park or a game with a much smaller attendance. But with all the noise going on it was down to the ref to provide much clearer communication with how he wanted the game to continue after the preceding events.

Mitch Connor

greendom wrote: »

So you think Nani's hand ball was accidental. I really hadn't considered that. I thought it was a deliberate act either to pick up the ball to take the penalty he thought was coming or in a fit of pique for not getting it

Yes it would be simple if you were playing in a park or a game with a much smaller attendance. But with all the noise going on it was down to the ref to provide much clearer communication with how he wanted the game to continue after the preceding events.

while acknowledging that he should have performed the required gestures, I would have thought NOT stopping the game was a clear indication that he wanted the play to continue.

Ush1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The Ref DID see the handball though, so what are you talking about?

It's fairly obvious.

But I'll say it again for you. Because of the refs lack of input (no whistle, no playing advantage signalled) he thought the ref didn't see the handball.
Raised his flag, asked the ref did he see it.

Maybe you should re-read my post. It outlays the 2 options and I've hinted one.

cournioni

mangaroosh wrote: »

I agree that the ref tried to play advantage, and that spurs had a perceived advantage by allowing Gomes to play the ball from his hands. However, that wasn't the end of the incident. Gomes placed the ball for what he understandably thought was a free-kick, for what was a blatant handball, and largely due to the referee's (admitted) lack of communication. In the mind of the referee, he still perceived that spurs had an advantage, hence his shrug of the shoulders when Gomes was looking for a whistle. Even when he awarded the goal he may still have believed that Spurs had been awarded the advantage. That wasn't the end of the incident however.

His linesman flagged to talk to him. At this point it becomes abundantly clear that Gomes thought it was a free-kick, and that what the referee perceived as an advantage, was not in fact an actual advantage, in-part due to his own (admitted) lack of communication. At this point he is free to exercise his discretion once again, just as he did in not awarding a free-kick for a blatant and deliberate handball. In the time between being flagged by his linesman, and ultimately awarding the goal, he can decide whether or not spurs actually gained an advantage during the passage of play.

The passage of play directly resulted in Spurs conceding a goal. If the referee deems an advantage to have been gained by that, then the goal should be awarded. If, on the other hand - and I believe this can be the only correct assessment - that he deems a passage of play that directly leads to conceding a goal, does not constitute the accrual of an advantage, then he should bring the play back for the original offence, which advantage was awarded for.



If a player had stopped a rolling ball with his hand, or had prevented the ball from going out of play, by placing a hand on it for 3-4 seconds, in the middle of the field, I have no doubt that the ref would have immediately blown for a free (almost instantly) and possibly even booked the player that committed an offence.


I'm not sure that is entirely releant to the situation being discussed. I will however say that according to a sensible interpretation of the rules, the goal was awarded, because Gallas was not interfering with play.

It is the ref's "sensible" interpretation of the rules, which I am questioning here, namely his interpretation that the passage of play, in which he claimed he was playing advantage, ultimately resulted in an advantage for spurs - with the concession of a goal.




Gomes' intellectual prowess isn't of major concern to me, as I believe he is a fantastic goalkeeper. I agree that he should have played to the whistle, however, it has everything to do with the ref, bcos ultimately it was down to his discretion not to play "advantage", and it was down to his discretion to decide whether a passage of play that directly resulted in the concession of a goal, constituted an advantage - or not as I think the case may be.

Play stops when the whistle is blown. There was no whistle blown, so play on advantage or no advantage. It's as simple as that.

greendom

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

Linky
Why would he do the same again?

As he would probably have been booked for kicking the ball from his hands when a free-kick had been awarded.

cournioni

greendom wrote: »

So you think Nani's hand ball was accidental. I really hadn't considered that. I thought it was a deliberate act either to pick up the ball to take the penalty he thought was coming or in a fit of pique for not getting it

Yes it would be simple if you were playing in a park or a game with a much smaller attendance. But with all the noise going on it was down to the ref to provide much clearer communication with how he wanted the game to continue after the preceding events.

It's a possiblity that the referee saw it as accidental, yes. And after seeing a million replays it is easy to see that it wasn't. In real time it may have been difficult to judge.

Play to the whistle. If you don't hear it, don't make the assumption that it has been blown.

Ush1

cournioni wrote: »

Play stops when the whistle is blown. There was no whistle blown, so play on advantage or no advantage. It's as simple as that.

Indeed, which the ref should indicate.

The Muppet

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I don't think it is.

There is a signal (both arms extended) for 'Play on', which the ref did not do. Seemingly he said 'Play on' to the players, but he did not perform the, maybe, required, gestures, which worked to confuse the matter.

In reality, Gomes should have played on as there was no whistle to stop the game, but the ref didn't help the situation. Both are at fault.

I disagree, the fact that he didn't blow the whistle and then started to make his way up the field was enough of an indication that no free had been awarded.

The ball was dead in the keepers arms so there should have been no necessity to perform any other gestures IMO.

Ush1

"Nani stopped the game with his hands but this is not basketball."

:pac:
I'm loving Gomes more and more lately.

greendom

cournioni wrote: »

Play to the whistle. If you don't hear it, don't make the assumption that it has been blown.

and get booked for kicking the ball from your hands if it had been ? Not to mention the time wasted through having to take the kick again.

cournioni

greendom wrote: »

As he would probably have been booked for kicking the ball from his hands when a free-kick had been awarded.

Nonsense.

The Muppet

Ush1 wrote: »

Brilliant counter argument there.

4 days on it's all a little tiresom, no ?

cournioni

greendom wrote: »

and get booked for kicking the ball from your hands if it had been ? Not to mention the time wasted through having to take the kick again.

Ok, well don't put the ball on the ground until you're sure a free has been given then. At what point did the referee signal a free?