Manchester United V Tottenham ESPN 5:30

Mitch Connor

Ush1 wrote: »

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.

Bu tin your last post you said this:

**************
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.
**************

The ref DID see the handball, so that is not what happened.

cournioni

Ush1 wrote: »

Indeed, which the ref should indicate.

There was no free or advantage is what I am suggesting.

He did signal advantage when he realised Gomes' stupidity in putting the ball on the ground without there being a whistle blown or a free kick given. At no point did he signal a free kick.

Ush1

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Bu tin your last post you said this:

**************
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.
**************

The ref DID see the handball, so that is not what happened.

If you see the post I was quoting, he said I didn't say that. I said this is what happened(i.e. what was said). Isn't that hard to follow.

astrofool

greendom wrote: »

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

Not if there hadn't been a whistle.

Gomes is a fool, god knows what he was thinking when he walked away from the ball, he was playing brinkmanship with the referee, and came out looking like a gigantic fool (again).

The fact that he'd do it again, makes him a huge liability for Spurs.

Ush1

The Muppet wrote: »

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

I agree.

greendom

cournioni wrote: »

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?

This is where the ref could have made life a lot easier for everyone, especially Gomes, by indicating how the game should continue. He doesn't have to, but a professional referee should really have stepped in and indicated clearly to Gomes that he wanted the game to continue. I accept that Gomes didn't cover himself in glory, but a ref of his experience really has a lot to answer for here.

Ush1

cournioni wrote: »

There was no free or advantage is what I am suggesting.

He did signal advantage when he realised Gomes' stupidity in putting the ball on the ground without there being a whistle blown or a free kick given. At no point did he signal a free kick.

By shrugging his shoulders at Gomes? In fairness like...

lordgoat

Ush1 wrote: »

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

Me too. Particularly when he's playing in goal. And makes a **** up that leads to a goal. Long may it continue.

Oh and calttenburg has gone on record saying he saw the inital handball. he also said the linesman raised his flag to indicate that he wished to speak to him. He did not directly say what it was. So to say he raised his flag for the handball is guesswork at best.

But keep going, you've taken over brilliantly from manga in the humour room.

Ush1

lordgoat wrote: »

Me too. Particularly when he's playing in goal. And makes a **** up that leads to a goal. Long may it continue.

Oh and calttenburg has gone on record saying he saw the inital handball. he also said the linesman raised his flag to indicate that he wished to speak to him. He did not directly say what it was. So to say he raised his flag for the handball is guesswork at best.

But keep going, you've taken over brilliantly from manga in the humour room.

The independant says different to you. Plus I didn't state it as fact. But yeah, keep going indeed.

Mr Alan

lordgoat wrote: »

So to say he raised his flag for the handball is guesswork at best.

Actually with Gomes running to him & and pointing at his hand & the linesman responding with "i know, i know", I think its pretty obvious why the linesman raised his flag.

roosh

Le King wrote: »

Obviously we will never really find out what the referee actually played advantage for but I imagine there was some communication through the mics to the ref from the linesman, no way in a million years could of Clattenberg saw that hand ball.

You Spuds fans are posting as if ye were robbed. You lost to the better team.

Gomes isn't a very bright man. Move on.

I would agree that Clattenburg didn't see the handball, judging by his lack of reaction to it. That simply adds weight to the argument that the free-kick should have been awarded, as he was subsequently informed by his linesman about an infringement he had not seen.

We were indeed robbed, robbed of the opportunity to play the last 5 minutes of the game only 1 goal behind, with the potential to try and score an equalizer, against a united team that had shown a propensity for throwing away leads this season.

I'm not saying we would have scored, but then I don't think that is a sensible or reasonable argument for awarding a goal that shouldn't have been given, just as the ref was incorrect to blow up early in the game between united and everton at Goodison. Jagielka went on to miss the chance, but it was still a disgraceful decision by the ref to blow up early.


As for moving on, I have no animosity towards anyone involved, I am simply addressing what I perceive to be an inaccurate interpretation of events.

roosh

kryogen wrote: »

This is a fact, United were the better team on the day, no there wasnt as much in it as usual but tbf, the spuds team is playing very well while we are still stuttering into gear so they should have gotten close to us

For all the talk of how Bale was going to tear us to shreds and how VDV was gonna split the defence and all that, i didnt see much of them after the first 10 minutes. Simply put Spurs got put in their place, which is below us

There wasn't really much between the teams, and 2-0 was a very flattering scoreline. United were edging the second half, but with 5mins to go, at 1-0, there was still the time for spurs to get an equaliser, which would have been a relatively fair reflection of the game.

If the perception is that Spurs are playing very well at the moment, then it is very much mistaken. Spurs are stuttering as much as united.


As for taking comfort in saying that spurs were put in their place, below united, it should perhaps be pointed out that over the past two seasons spurs have been improving while united have been disimproving. Our realisitic aim isn't to win the league, although we may theoretically aim high, our aim is to consolidate 4th, and we are currently 2 points off that, after a very, very indifferent start to the season, and a raft of injuroes to key players.

As a spurs fan, I would be more confident of us finishing 4th again, than I would be of united winning the league or champions league, which are surely the primary goals for the club.

roosh

Liam O wrote: »

The thing that makes me LMAO is that the United players were shouting and pointing at the ball to Nani and Gomes didn't realise anything was going on. How thick do you have to be?

Park Ji Sung wrote: »

And scholes was sprinting straight at the ball almost before anyone else even reacted.

Fletcher is calling Nani back, pesumably to defend any potential attack, and Scholes only sprints towards the ball once Nani is standing over it.

EDIT: they do actually gesture to play the ball

JimsAlterEgo

Gomes had the advantage and used it, he ended the advantage by his stupidity. There was no pressure on him to throw down the ball, which he did after deciding himself that he couldn't give a quick delivery. He wanted to have his cake and eat it.

roosh

lordgoat wrote: »

As with everyone else Clattenburg is probably thinking wtf is this clown doing? Why is he throwing the ball into open play? The more i watch it the funnier it is.

That's exactly what Clattenburg was thinking, but that wasn't the end of the incident. He is subsequently called by his linesman, in which time he has the opportunity to ask whether, at the end of the passage of play, had spurs gained the advantage he was supposedly awarding.

RasTa

Football isn't Rugby btw with the advantage rule

Le King

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.

I wouldn't say the ref is at fault. The lineman made a joke of it. Only raising his flag when the Spuds players stampede towards him.

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.

You can't expect a decision in football. Play to the whistle.

JimsAlterEgo

RasTa wrote: »

Football isn't Rugby btw with the advantage rule

exactly, by allowing him the ball in his hands thats the advantage. Utd players don't have to retreat and allow him to clear it in the manner he chooses. IMO he got an advantage and then choose to throw it down when he could see none. Imagine an outfield player being fouled and stopping and deciding he couldn't see a pass on and stopping and taking a free kick. Players do not decide if advantage eapplies

roosh

cournioni wrote: »

I'm only posting this once because I have to vent at some of the Spurs fans, but moreso the two faced commentators and pundits, some of the Spurs players and their manager.

I'm fed up with the rubbish coming from all of the above. The game was 1-0 to United, Spurs were not denied a goalscoring opportunity, therefore it wasn't a forgone conclusion that the match would have ended as a draw or a Spurs win. The way Mr Redknapp, Gomes and co. have reacted you would think they were denied a certain victory. Get over it, you were beaten by the better team on the day.

The game was 1-0 to united, with 5 minutes to go, which meant there was an opportunity for spurs to try and get an equaliser, which would have meant a point, and an improved goal difference. It certainly wasn't a foregone conclusion that spurs would have gotten anything out of the game, just as it wasn't a foregone conclusion that united would get all three points. The ref didn't deny a goalsscoring opportunity, he denied the opportunity to get a draw from the game - effectively ruling any subsequent goalscoring opportunities meaningless.

cournioni wrote: »

Finally to that goal... Personally, I thought it could have been given as a penalty as there was contact with Nani in the penalty area. The same way as it could have been given as a handball when Nani went down on top of the ball. No whistle was blown, and no free was given for either incident. Gomes took it upon himself to throw the ball on the ground without the referees whistle blown and no free given in favour of Spurs.

As the famous saying goes "assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups". Nani took full advantage of this assumption. If Spurs fans are looking for someone to blame it should be their clown of a goalkeeper. He didn't play to the whistle and he took the rules of the game into his own hands. It cost him and Spurs a goal, and any possibility of an equaliser.

It could have been a free, but the ref decided that it wasn't. He did however, apparently adjudge an offence to have been committed by Nani, which is why he [claims] that he was playing an advantage.

The question is, at the end of the passage of play, was an advantage gained? As the passage of play resulted in a goal against spurs, the answer must be no, despite the fact that spurs gained a perceived advantage by Gomes having the ball in his hands. Clattenburg had he opportunity to exercise his discretion again, once his linesman flagged him, to decide if an actual advantage had accrued. As the end result of the incident was a goal against spurs, I'm not sure how the argument can be made that, when all was said and done, that an advantage was gained.

Yes Gomes had the ball in his hands, and he should have played to the whistle, but due to the referees [admitted] lack of communication and a blatant handball, that would have resulted in a free-kick anywhere else on the pitch, he presumed it was a free-kick. It was an incorrect assumption, and one he should not have made.

Again, it comes back to the referees discretion as to whether an advantage had actually been gained. Conceding a goal means no.

Ush1

Le King wrote: »

I wouldn't say the ref is at fault. The lineman made a joke of it. Only raising his flag when the Spuds players stampede towards him.



You can't expect a decision in football. Play to the whistle.

Yes but it's still bad reffing. It was actually probably a penalty originally to Nani which the ref didn't give.

killwill

Mr Alan wrote: »

Actually with Gomes running to him & and pointing at his hand & the linesman responding with "i know, i know", I think its pretty obvious why the linesman raised his flag.

Why didn't the linesman raise his flag after the handball? Why did he wait for the protests?
At the end of the day, it should have been a penalty, but United and Spurs played to the whistle, then it should have been a freekick, but neither were called.
You can clearly see the ref put out his arms and shrug at Gomes when the ball is in his hands. Then Gomes puts the ball on the ground and the ref does the same again.
Nani gets up and strolls over to the ball, looks at the ref twice and kicks the ball in. At this stage the linesman had every opportunity to raise his flag but never did.
Yes, Spurs were kinda hard done by and every ABU comes on here to b1tch and moan when we get something in our favour, but noone was on here the last 2 weeks when United have 2 clear penalties denied saying we were hard done by.

roosh

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.

I would largely agree, but would say that the ref was ultimately at fault.

Gomes should have played to the whistle, no arguments there.

Nani was not at fault, no arguments there.


The issue, I believe, is that it was at the referees discretion to award or disallow the goal.

He used his discretion to "play advantage" and not award a free. Playing advantage means he can subsequently bring play back if no advantage is gained.

Gomes has the ball in his hands, which the referee thinks is an advantage. Is this the end of the advantage? The goalkeeper assumes that it is a free-kick, because there was no indication of advantage, and the offence committed by Nani was punishable by a free-kick, or awarding advantage, however no advantage was indicated.

Not indicating the advantage, was poor refereeing.

Gomes incorrectly assumes there is a free, directly as a result of this poor refereeing.

he places the ball and looks to the ref for an indication, who because of his earlier failure to communicate that he was playing advantage, apparently didn't know what Gomes was looking for.

Nani puts the ball in the net. Still, not the end of the incident.

The referee is called by his linesman. At this point he is free to exercise his discretion again. He can choose to award the goal or bring it back for the offence, which he was allegedly playing advantage for.

If he was playing advantage, he is acknowledging that an offence was committed, but the question he must ask, is whether an actual advantage was gained. The end result was a goal, but he can still choose to bring it back for a free-kick, if he decides that no real advantage was gained.

On reflection, his own poor communication contributed to a goal being conceded, and therefore no actual advantage being gained.

killwill

mangaroosh wrote: »

The question is, at the end of the passage of play, was an advantage gained?

The clear answer is yes advantage was gained once Gomes had the ball in his hands. Anything after that is irrelevant.

roosh

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.

What happens if a player blatantly handles the ball and traps it on the ground, and stops it from going out of play, and there is a player close by who then picks up the ball and places it for a free?

Is it play on?

roosh

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

Why do players try to gain yards by moving up the touchline for a throw? Why do players place the ball just outside the arc when taking corners?
Why do players try to move the ball forward when awarded a free, anywhere else on the pitch?

Also, possibly bcos Nani was in the way of where the free would have had to have been taken from.

killwill

mangaroosh wrote: »

What happens if a player blatantly handles the ball and traps it on the ground, and stops it from going out of play, and there is a player close by who then picks up the ball and places it for a free?

Is it play on?

That would depend, did the ref blow the whistle?!!!

killwill

mangaroosh wrote: »

Why do players try to gain yards by moving up the touchline for a throw? Why do players place the ball just outside the arc when taking corners?
Why do players try to move the ball forward when awarded a free, anywhere else on the pitch?

Also, possibly bcos Nani was in the way of where the free would have had to have been taken from.

He could have put it a yard on either side of Nani, instead of 10 yards up the pitch.

roosh

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.

that is only because he didn't signal at the time the handball occured, he signalled after the goal had gone in, and he was reminded that a handball had occurred, which was punishable by a free.

The ref claimed he was playing advantage, but his lack of communication contributed to (not enturely caused) Gomes' confusion, which lead to the concession of a goal.

When the linesman flagged, he had the opportunity to exercise his discretion, and decide whether an acutal advantage had been gained, or whether, when all was said and done, any actual advantage had accrued, and whether his poor communication contributed to a lack of advantage.

Basically, he had to decide whether an actual advantage had been accrued, at the end of it all. The concession of a goal, in no way constitutes and advantage, and the referees poor communication contributed to that.

He should have been man enough to take control of the situation, admit his mistake and not give a decision that disadvantaged a team that was supposed to be receiving an advantage.

It is understandable why he didn't, but at the end of it all, it was an incorrect decision.

roosh

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?

what happens if a player handles the ball, and traps it on the ground, and stops it from going out of play, then the opposition player places it for a free-kick, without the ref blowing for a free or indicating advantage, then the player who committed the original offence takes the ball and plays on?

what should the ref do?

Blitzkrieger

mangaroosh wrote: »

We were indeed robbed, robbed of the opportunity to play the last 5 minutes of the game only 1 goal behind.

If we're talking robbed, where was United's penalty for Kaboul grabbing Nani by the jersey and dragging him back twice? There's been over 10 pages of arguments here about what happened afterwards but very few people saying Spurs were lucky not to have had a penalty given against them. And with so many players out injured, what would a 2nd yellow card and a suspension for Kaboul have cost Spurs?

Robbed? The ref gave them an early Christmas present.

roosh

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.

he's not the reason that united went 2-0 up, that is largely Gomes' fault. But he is the reason the goal was allowed to stand.

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

The ref claimed he was playing advantage, but his lack of communication contributed to (not enturely caused) Gomes' confusion, which lead to the concession of a goal.

Did Clattenburgh say he had seen the handball? I thought he hadn't seen it and therefore that's why it was play on and not for advantage. Or have I missed something?

roosh

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.

definitely both are at fault, but ultimately the ref is to blame, as the final decision was his.

roosh

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

I think the issue is a sematical one.

he was flagging about the handball

roosh

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.

the ref claiming he was playing advantage for a handball, means it could have been a free-kick

cournioni wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately it isn't quite so simples when the referees discretion is involved, it becomes a matter of justified or unjustified opinion.

roosh

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, it is that simple, but it's also quite simple that when playing advantage - as the ref claims he was doing - if no advantage accrues, then play is brought back for the original infringement.

roosh

cournioni wrote: »

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.

accidental or not, he still claims he was playing advantage, which means he adjudged it to have been a penalisable offence.

roosh

Ush1 wrote: »

Indeed, which the ref should indicate.

and if no advantage accrues, or he is largely responsible for the lack of advantage accruing, bring it back for a free-kick

roosh

The Muppet wrote: »

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.

Clattenburg would appear to disagree, judging by his comments in the independent.

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed, it is that simple, but it's also quite simple that when playing advantage - as the ref claims he was doing - if no advantage accrues, then play is brought back for the original infringement.

I don't get this. Was it not just play on because the ref did not see a free (as in he didn't see the handball) and not a case of that he had seen the handball and played advantage and left play go on?

Le King

This is getting pretty boring now. Funnily enough it should of been a penalty anyway.


GET OVER IT.

roosh

lordgoat wrote: »

Oh and calttenburg has gone on record saying he saw the inital handball. he also said the linesman raised his flag to indicate that he wished to speak to him. He did not directly say what it was. So to say he raised his flag for the handball is guesswork at best. .

not guesswork, rather deductive reasoning

deisedevil

Mangaroosh. Where has Clattenburg said that he saw the handball and played advantage?

roosh

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Gomes had the advantage and used it, he ended the advantage by his stupidity. There was no pressure on him to throw down the ball, which he did after deciding himself that he couldn't give a quick delivery. He wanted to have his cake and eat it.

Why did he think it was a free?

1)Blatant handball
2)No communication from the ref that advantage was being played
3)naïvety in not playing to whistle

did an advantage accrue? the end result was the concession of a goal, so no.

what were the reasons no advantage was accrued?
2)No communication from the ref that advantage was being played - as admitted by the ref
3)naïvety in not playing to whistle

#2 directly affected #3

at the ref's discretion, should the goal have stood?
He claims he was playing advantage.

Did an advantage accrue? ultimately no.

Why not? Largely due to his lack of communication.


Could he have rectified his contribution to the error? yes

did he? no.

roosh

RasTa wrote: »

Football isn't Rugby btw with the advantage rule

indeed, but it is up to the refs discretion, and it's his possible reasoning that is being questioned.

pah

mangaroosh wrote: »

indeed, but it is up to the refs discretion, and it's his possible reasoning that is being questioned.

I would think the advantage was that Gomes was in a position to play the ball and have spurs break on the counter with at least one unite player squirming on the floor like a little 4 yr old who didn't get his ice cream

Advantage in Soccer seems to be played for the most part there and then in a precise moment never lasting for more than a second or two

I think Gomes is mostly at fault but Nani shouldn't have gone for it in the interest of fair play. I imagine his goal scoring instinct overtook that though

Mars Bar

Someone, anyone, PLEASE LOCK THIS!

jaykay74

Clear pen. Nani was being dragged back.

roosh

killwill wrote: »

The clear answer is yes advantage was gained once Gomes had the ball in his hands. Anything after that is irrelevant.

The incident didn't end there though and clearly it isn't irrelevant, it resulted directly in a goal.

The issue is, the ref claimed he was playing advantage, but didn't indicate so to the one player he should have - the player on the ball.

The player with the ball understandably presumed it was a free, if incorrectly so, largely due to lack of communication from the ref - the ref is to blame for this.

His lack of communication was a major contributory factor to the goalkeeper assuming that it was a free, and therefore to the goal being conceded.

Still, the incident was not at an end. The ref's lack of communication contributed to no actual advantage being accrued. If the ref had communicated clearly that advantage was being played, then Gomes would not have placed the ball for a free-kick. So the ref is a major contributory factor to the goal.

He can then decide whether or not an actual advantage had been accrued. Concession of a goal, owing to his poor communication does not constitute an advantage, but rather a disadvantage.

So he should have brought the play back of the initial infringement.

Again, it is entirely at the refs discretion, and it is his possible reasoning that is being challenged. Gomes picking the ball up appeared to the ref like an advantage, fair enough, but wasn't the end of the incident.

It becomes abundantly clear that the ref's lack of communication contributed to Gomes confusion. If the ref's rationale was that he was playing advantage, but his poor communication contributed to the concession of a goal, then he must judge whether the concession of a goal was an advantage.

roosh

killwill wrote: »

That would depend, did the ref blow the whistle?!!!

the question is, should the ref blow the whistle?