Manchester United V Tottenham ESPN 5:30

roosh

killwill wrote: »

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

very true, just as every player could place the ball in the arc when taking a corner, and take throws and frees from the correct place.

killwill

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

The reffing incident did not result in a goal. They had total control of the ball when it was in the keepers hands.
The goalkeeping error ended in a goal.
The ref could and should have done better, but if he had done his job correctly in the first place United would have had a penalty. Swings and roundabout. Time to move on.

roosh

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

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.

I've stated that it could have been a penalty, but that isn't the issue of contention.

After deciding that it wasn't a penalty, the ref robbed spurs as was mentioned

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

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?

he claimed he was playing advantage, according to the article in the independent.

if he hadn't seen the handball, and the linesman informed him about it, he should have brought it back for the free anyway.

killwill

mangaroosh wrote: »

the question is, should the ref blow the whistle?

Of course the ref should blow his whistle. But should players presume to have a free or play to that whistle?

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

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?

he claims he was playing advantage and therefore that he acknowledged that it should have been a free, but he was playing advantage.

if he hadn't seen it, and the lino subsequently informed him about it, he should have brought it back for the free anyway

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

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

did you see the independent article that was posted earlier?

he claims he was playing advantage.

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

he claims he was playing advantage and therefore that he acknowledged that it should have been a free, but he was playing advantage.

if he hadn't seen it, and the lino subsequently informed him about it, he should have brought it back for the free anyway

Ok. Please post a link to this article with quotes from Clattenburg.

I can't find any. Makes a big difference to what you think happened.

Iago

mars bar wrote: »

Someone, anyone, PLEASE LOCK THIS!

Why? It's actually an interesting debate tbh.

imo apart from the penalty not being given, everyone actually did the right thing (except Gomes obv)

In saying that there's a bigger question to be answered around the strict application of the letter of the law, which we saw again in last nights game, but that's why referees have the whole "interpretation" piece to fall back on.

Ref/lino didn't think it was a penalty so let play go on

Ref/lino saw Nani handle the ball but Gomes then had it in his hands so ref plays advantage (it's a clear advantage btw, with the ball in his hands Gomes can kick it further and can also use the full area of his box for distribution rather than be 1 yard from the touchline to the side of his goal)

Gomes moves to where he wants to distribute the ball from and throws it down to prepare his kick (clearly he wasn't aware that advantage was being played)

Nani gets up and sticks the ball in the net

Lino raises his flag, not waves which is important, ref comes over "did you see the handball?" "yep, and I played advantage" "fair enough so, goal it is"

and away we go

The interesting part is whether or not he should have gone back and given the freekick after the fact which is where "interpretation" kicks in.

If a player takes a quick free kick and kicks it out of play/to the opposition keeper rather than his teammate the ref won't pull play back because no advantage was accrued. You're given the option of an advantage, if you don't take it then that's hardly the refs fault.

Had Nani kicked the ball out of Gomes hands then it would have been brought back, Gomes dropping it on the floor was no different to Gomes kicking it out but mis-hitting it to Hernadez who rolls it into an empty net.


Gomes caused the problem because although you would think it was clear that he knew there was no advantage there are two factors to consider

1) At no point did a whistle go, or a flag get raised by the linesman

2) He didn't drop the ball were the offence took place, but ran 5 yards and dropped the ball about 12/14 yards from the offence

roosh

pah wrote: »

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

advantage is entirely at the refs discretion, and occasionally goes on for longer than a second or two.

basically it comes down to a question of whether the ref thinks an advantage was gained, as that is what he claims he was playing.

he admitted that he didn't communicate the advantage clearly, which lead to Gomes' confusion about the free, which lead to Nani scoring.

his linesman then called him, and he could have decided whether or not that represented an advantage.

roosh

jaykay74 wrote: »

Clear pen. Nani was being dragged back.

ref decided against it.

killwill

mangaroosh wrote: »

ref decided against it.

As he did with stopping play to give a free. How long do you have to have possession of the ball before bringing it back for a free?

roosh

killwill wrote: »

The reffing incident did not result in a goal. They had total control of the ball when it was in the keepers hands.
The goalkeeping error ended in a goal.
The ref could and should have done better, but if he had done his job correctly in the first place United would have had a penalty. Swings and roundabout. Time to move on.

his lack of communication lead to Gomes confusion, which lead to the goal.

it was probably a penalty, but such penalties regularly get waved away. even if it was however, the penalty or the free were the only reasonable decisions.

a penalty can always be saved, and ten men can equalise against eleven in the last five minutes.

I'm over the goal, I'm just defending my arguments now.

Wile E. Coyote

mangaroosh wrote: »

basically it comes down to a question of whether the ref thinks an advantage was gained, as that is what he claims he was playing.

Will you please stop repeating this line over and over again. How much of an advantage does Gomes need? He had the ball in his hand and moved a further 10 yards up the field.

Wile E. Coyote

mangaroosh wrote: »

his lack of communication lead to Gomes confusion, which lead to the goal.

If Gomes wasn't clear on what was going on then he shouldn't have dropped the ball on the ground and taken 5 steps away from it.

roosh

killwill wrote: »

Of course the ref should blow his whistle. But should players presume to have a free or play to that whistle?

thank you. that is the fundamental question.

it's a question of what should the ref have done, or was what he did the correct decision?

jaykay74

mangaroosh wrote: »

ref decided against it.

incorrectly.

Ref ballsed it up alright by not awarding a pen. Luckily Gomes had the heart to even things up.

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

did you see the independent article that was posted earlier?

he claims he was playing advantage.

Can you post the article please. I have gone way back through the thread and can't find it and have looked on Independent website and nothing there either.

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

Ok. Please post a link to this article with quotes from Clattenburg.

I can't find any. Makes a big difference to what you think happened.

As posted earlier in the thread

The referee Mark Clattenburg will stick by his controversial decision to let Luis Nani's goal stand against Tottenham Hotspur, justified by the fact that he saw the Manchester United winger handle the ball and played advantage

Independent article

Wile E. Coyote

mangaroosh wrote: »

As posted earlier in the thread

Independent article

So the ref didn't actually say anything to the press he said it to 'friends'...

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

As posted earlier in the thread

Independent article

That's not a quote in all fairness, they claim a friend of Clattenburg said something along those lines:

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).

That's nothing like Clattenburg saying he played advantage.

So back to what I was saying earlier, Clattenburg never gave the sign to show advantage, in fact he never gave any sign about anything and never blew the whistle. So if he didn't see the handball then he did the right thing.

roosh

It ultimately comes down to:

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?

roosh

Iago wrote: »

Why? It's actually an interesting debate tbh.

imo apart from the penalty not being given, everyone actually did the right thing (except Gomes obv)

In saying that there's a bigger question to be answered around the strict application of the letter of the law, which we saw again in last nights game, but that's why referees have the whole "interpretation" piece to fall back on.

Ref/lino didn't think it was a penalty so let play go on

Ref/lino saw Nani handle the ball but Gomes then had it in his hands so ref plays advantage (it's a clear advantage btw, with the ball in his hands Gomes can kick it further and can also use the full area of his box for distribution rather than be 1 yard from the touchline to the side of his goal)

Gomes moves to where he wants to distribute the ball from and throws it down to prepare his kick (clearly he wasn't aware that advantage was being played)

Nani gets up and sticks the ball in the net

Lino raises his flag, not waves which is important, ref comes over "did you see the handball?" "yep, and I played advantage" "fair enough so, goal it is"

and away we go

The interesting part is whether or not he should have gone back and given the freekick after the fact which is where "interpretation" kicks in.

If a player takes a quick free kick and kicks it out of play/to the opposition keeper rather than his teammate the ref won't pull play back because no advantage was accrued. You're given the option of an advantage, if you don't take it then that's hardly the refs fault.

Had Nani kicked the ball out of Gomes hands then it would have been brought back, Gomes dropping it on the floor was no different to Gomes kicking it out but mis-hitting it to Hernadez who rolls it into an empty net.


Gomes caused the problem because although you would think it was clear that he knew there was no advantage there are two factors to consider

1) At no point did a whistle go, or a flag get raised by the linesman

2) He didn't drop the ball were the offence took place, but ran 5 yards and dropped the ball about 12/14 yards from the offence

Gomes is at fault, but his error is in no small part due to the referees inadequate communication.

So the ref's poor communication largely contributes to Gomes' confusion, which leads to the goal. Does that constitute an advantage?

again, it ultimately comes down to this:

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?

roosh

killwill wrote: »

As he did with stopping play to give a free. How long do you have to have possession of the ball before bringing it back for a free?

I don't think I understand this.

do you mean, as he did by not stopping play?

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

Gomes is at fault, but his error is in no small part due to the referees inadequate communication.

So the ref's poor communication largely contributes to Gomes' confusion, which leads to the goal. Does that constitute an advantage?

again, it ultimately comes down to this:

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?

Ref didn't see handball, therefore didn't indicate a free or advantage.

Wile E. Coyote

mangaroosh wrote: »

It ultimately comes down to:

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?

Then the game continues as normal. The ref hasn't indicated for a free-kick so why should the player assume he's getting one?

roosh

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Will you please stop repeating this line over and over again. How much of an advantage does Gomes need? He had the ball in his hand and moved a further 10 yards up the field.

was that an actual advantage, given that the ref's lack of communication lead to Gomes' confusion, which lead to the goal?

the ref only thought he had given an advantage, but his lack of communication meant that he hadn't really.

and not for the sake of repetition, but for the sake of conclusion, what do you think the answer to this question is:

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?

roosh

jaykay74 wrote: »

incorrectly.

Ref ballsed it up alright by not awarding a pen. Luckily Gomes had the heart to even things up.

and who said the spirit of the game was dead?

everdead.ie

Iago wrote: »

Why? It's actually an interesting debate tbh.

imo apart from the penalty not being given, everyone actually did the right thing (except Gomes obv)

In saying that there's a bigger question to be answered around the strict application of the letter of the law, which we saw again in last nights game, but that's why referees have the whole "interpretation" piece to fall back on.

Ref/lino didn't think it was a penalty so let play go on

Ref/lino saw Nani handle the ball but Gomes then had it in his hands so ref plays advantage (it's a clear advantage btw, with the ball in his hands Gomes can kick it further and can also use the full area of his box for distribution rather than be 1 yard from the touchline to the side of his goal)

Gomes moves to where he wants to distribute the ball from and throws it down to prepare his kick (clearly he wasn't aware that advantage was being played)

Nani gets up and sticks the ball in the net

Lino raises his flag, not waves which is important, ref comes over "did you see the handball?" "yep, and I played advantage" "fair enough so, goal it is"

and away we go

The interesting part is whether or not he should have gone back and given the freekick after the fact which is where "interpretation" kicks in.

If a player takes a quick free kick and kicks it out of play/to the opposition keeper rather than his teammate the ref won't pull play back because no advantage was accrued. You're given the option of an advantage, if you don't take it then that's hardly the refs fault.

Had Nani kicked the ball out of Gomes hands then it would have been brought back, Gomes dropping it on the floor was no different to Gomes kicking it out but mis-hitting it to Hernadez who rolls it into an empty net.


Gomes caused the problem because although you would think it was clear that he knew there was no advantage there are two factors to consider

1) At no point did a whistle go, or a flag get raised by the linesman

2) He didn't drop the ball were the offence took place, but ran 5 yards and dropped the ball about 12/14 yards from the offence

Longest and most viewed thread I've ever started would of been very easy for the whole thing to be avoided though, Ref definetly needed to signal something the assistant said he didn't know if the ref had seen the handball or if he had given a free or was playing advantage hopefully it won't be a mistake he will make again.

We have a few important games coming up and we have started the season poorly so hopefully we get a bit of luck in the next few weeks and can start putting points on the board.

I'm also pretty happy with the way Redknapp handled the situation by speaking out he is doing what ferguson and Wenger have been doing for years protecting the player(Gomes) and putting pressure on the refs to maybe in future give us the benifit of the doubt in some situation. While it does feel unjust/Unsportsmanly(if thats a word) we have to get on with it and try to win our next matches dwelling on it will only affect our future performances.

sneakyST

If the referee was using the advantage clause then he should have signalled that. However is is quite common for a referee not to signal anything in such scenarios and just shout Play on. Example, player flagged for offside, assistant raises flag, ball goes to keeper. Referee will wave down the flag and shout play on. No advantage signal required, just get on with it.

What seems to be missed that if it was an advantage, if the player gains control of the ball and has the time to play it unchallenged but subsequently makes a complete mess of it, then the referee isnt going to bring it back. Thats what may have occurred, which if it did it was just poor communication from the referee, but still a valid goal.

roosh

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

So the ref didn't actually say anything to the press he said it to 'friends'...

we can discuss either eventuality.

we've discussed the case where he played advantage.

If it was a case that he didn't see the hanball, and was subsequently informed by his linesman, he should have brought it back for the free.

If he did see, the hanball and didn't give anything, and was subsequently informed about it by the lino, he should have brought it back for a free.


all roads lead to Rome.

Wile E. Coyote

mangaroosh wrote: »

and not for the sake of repetition, but for the sake of conclusion, what do you think the answer to this question is:

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?

Posted just above you

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

That's not a quote in all fairness, they claim a friend of Clattenburg said something along those lines:



That's nothing like Clattenburg saying he played advantage.

So back to what I was saying earlier, Clattenburg never gave the sign to show advantage, in fact he never gave any sign about anything and never blew the whistle. So if he didn't see the handball then he did the right thing.

similar issue raised by Wile E. Coyote, and replied to

roosh

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Then the game continues as normal. The ref hasn't indicated for a free-kick so why should the player assume he's getting one?

so the ref should allow play to continue?

Wile E. Coyote

mangaroosh wrote: »

so the ref should allow play to continue?

Yes. The player shouldn't assume that the ref has seen the foul and shouldn't take it upon himself to award a free kick, which is what Gomes did. You play until the offical stops the game.

roosh

sneakyST wrote: »

If the referee was using the advantage clause then he should have signalled that. However is is quite common for a referee not to signal anything in such scenarios and just shout Play on. Example, player flagged for offside, assistant raises flag, ball goes to keeper. Referee will wave down the flag and shout play on. No advantage signal required, just get on with it.

What seems to be missed that if it was an advantage, if the player gains control of the ball and has the time to play it unchallenged but subsequently makes a complete mess of it, then the referee isnt going to bring it back. Thats what may have occurred, which if it did it was just poor communication from the referee, but still a valid goal.

if he's playing advantage, the it is down to his discretion whether an advantage has been accrued or not.

if the ref's lack of communication directly leads to a players confusion, which results in no advantage actually being accrued, but rather a goal being conceded, the ref has to decide if that constitutes an advantage.

sneakyST

mangaroosh wrote: »

It ultimately comes down to:

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?

Thats a different scenario and not what happened in this case, you left out other facts which has given the referee a different decision

roosh

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Yes. The player shouldn't assume that the ref has seen the foul and shouldn't take it upon himself to award a free kick, which is what Gomes did. You play until the offical stops the game.

the question is what should the ref do?

two separate hypotheticals, where:
a)the ref sees the infringement
b)he doesn't see it, but is subsequently informed about it

so what should he do in both these cases?

Fuhrer

mangaroosh wrote: »

It ultimately comes down to:

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?

Interesting question, all the more interesting given that that didnt happen.


Heres another hypothetical.


If Gomes picked up the ball, walked out shrugged his shoulders and turned around and booted the ball into his own net, what do you think would happen?

JimsAlterEgo

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

Yes. The player shouldn't assume that the ref has seen the foul and shouldn't take it upon himself to award a free kick, which is what Gomes did. You play until the offical stops the game.

one of the first things you are taught in schoolboy football

sneakyST

mangaroosh wrote: »

if he's playing advantage, the it is down to his discretion whether an advantage has been accrued or not.

if the ref's lack of communication directly leads to a players confusion, which results in no advantage actually being accrued, but rather a goal being conceded, the ref has to decide if that constitutes an advantage.

No he doesnt as Gomes made a mess of it. He had the ball under control and decided to run out and throw it on the ground. That is a new passage of play in my book and 99% of other referees

niallo27

Fuhrer wrote: »

Interesting question, all the more interesting given that that didnt happen.


Heres another hypothetical.


If Gomes picked up the ball, walked out shrugged his shoulders and turned around and booted the ball into his own net, what do you think would happen?

What has happened to a bit of common sense, the ref should have used it, and utd fans would have forgotten about the issue 5 mins later

Fuhrer

niallo27 wrote: »

What has happened to a bit of common sense, the ref should have used it, and utd fans would have forgotten about the issue 5 mins later

The ref did.

Get over yourself.

Wile E. Coyote

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

one of the first things you are taught in schoolboy football

Exactly. And if a professional being paid €30-40k a week can't grasp that basic concept I might just take myself out of retirement.

roosh

sneakyST wrote: »

Thats a different scenario and not what happened in this case, you left out other facts which has given the referee a different decision

what happened was, a player handled the ball, an opposition player placed the ball to take a free-kick, and the player who caused the initial infringement, took the ball an played on.

Now, either
a)the ref saw the infringement and didn't blow for a free or signal adavantage

or

b) didn't see it, but was subsequently informed about it


what should he do in both cases?

roosh

Fuhrer wrote: »

Interesting question, all the more interesting given that that didnt happen.

that's pretty much exactly what happened

Fuhrer

mangaroosh wrote: »

what happened was, a player handled the ball, an opposition player placed the ball to take a free-kick, and the player who caused the initial infringement, took the ball an played on.

Would have been a great point if there wasnt video to show that didnt happen.

Gomes picked the ball out, marched out and rolled the ball out in front of him. Then he spassed out and let Nani score.

greendom

This is the key part as far as I'm concerned from the Independent article and if true shows that Clattenberg should admit responsibility for the whole sorry incident

If there was one criticism that Clattenburg has admitted he accepts, it was that he should have been more demonstrative about telling Gomes and the Spurs players he was playing advantage.

Wile E. Coyote

mangaroosh wrote: »

the question is what should the ref do?

two separate hypotheticals, where:
a)the ref sees the infringement
b)he doesn't see it, but is subsequently informed about it

so what should he do in both these cases?

a)the ref sees the infringement
He either blows the whistle and awards a free-kick or he lets play continue. Team A has the ball and the opposing player is on the ground. If they player with the ball doesn't use the advantage he clearly has then thats his own fault. Play continues.

b)he doesn't see it, but is subsequently informed about it
The ref takes the information on board. Decides the player had the advantage but through his own stupidity didn't benefit from it. Play continues.

roosh

sneakyST wrote: »

No he doesnt as Gomes made a mess of it. He had the ball under control and decided to run out and throw it on the ground. That is a new passage of play in my book and 99% of other referees

what happened was, a player handled the ball, an opposition player placed the ball to take a free-kick, and the player who caused the initial infringement, took the ball an played on.

Now, either
a)the ref saw the infringement and didn't blow for a free or signal adavantage

or

b) didn't see it, but was subsequently informed about it


what should the ref do in both cases?