Manchester United V Tottenham ESPN 5:30

sneakyST

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.

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?

But that is not what happened.

A player handled the ball. Referee waves away penalty appeals. Opposition player picked ball up. Referee started backward sprint up towards halfway line. Player runs forward with the ball and throws it on the ground. And then asks referee what to do. Normally any sane goalkeeper keeps it in his hands and then asks the referee what is happening if he is unsure.

niallo27

Fuhrer wrote: »

The ref did.

Get over yourself.

He used no common sense, get over myself, what does that mean

roosh

Fuhrer wrote: »

Gomes picked the ball out, marched out and rolled the ball out in front of him.

this is a not uncommon way of placing a ball for a relatively quick free-kick

niallo27

sneakyST wrote: »

But that is not what happened.

A player handled the ball. Referee waves away penalty appeals. Opposition player picked ball up. Referee started backward sprint up towards halfway line. Player runs forward with the ball and throws it on the ground. And then asks referee what to do. Normally any sane goalkeeper keeps it in his hands and then asks the referee what is happening if he is unsure.

Well we know gomes was a tit, but why didnt the linesman sprint back to the halfway line as well

sneakyST

mangaroosh wrote: »

this is a not uncommon way of placing a ball for a relatively quick free-kick

Well if it was a free kick, and it wasnt as no whistle was blown, the referee would quickly move it back to the correct place and the assistant would be holding the flag out to indicate the location of the free kick. None of which occurred so your point is not relevant.

roosh

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

a)the ref sees the infringement
He either blows the whistle and awards a free-kick or he lets play continue.

which one is it though? which should he do?

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

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.

Team A player fouls the ball, Ref does not indicate a free or advantage.
Team B player places ball for a free-kick (using his hands)
Team A player takes control of the ball and plays on.

What should the ref do?

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

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.

If he didn't see it, then the advantage rule doesn't apply, as no advantage was being played.

He is informed about an infringement he didn't see, that leads to the infringing player gaining an advantage.

sneakyST

niallo27 wrote: »

Well we know gomes was a tit, but why didnt the linesman sprint back to the halfway line as well

he did move towards the half way line with the flag by his side. He doesnt always sprint. I know I dont as you may have to sprint back to get in line with the second last defender for kick off.

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

How about we discuss the fact that you pretended for ages on this thread that Clattenburg had actually said afterwards he was playing advantage just so your point would look valid?

Le King

deisedevil wrote: »

How about we discuss the fact that you pretended for ages on this thread that Clattenburg had actually said afterwards he was playing advantage just so your point would look valid?

Or what about the fact that Spuds fans should stop whining, they got away with a blatant penalty and their keeper is a tit.

You got lucky with that not being a peno then scream bloody murder because your keeper lacks a brain.

Classy.

niallo27

Le King wrote: »

Or what about the fact that Spuds fans should stop whining, they got away with a blatant penalty and their keeper is a tit.

You got lucky with that not being a peno then scream bloody murder because your keeper lacks a brain.

Classy.

If you take off the red goggles there you'll see that when nani went to ground, there was no defender near him, he got a slight tug back but it was no pen

Ush1

Funny how bad officiating is okay with some once it "evens out". Two wrongs do make a right it seems.

deisedevil

Ush1 wrote: »

Funny how bad officiating is okay with some once it "evens out". Two wrongs do make a right it seems.

Worst of all though, there are some who have been banging on about Clattenburg playing advantage. There was no advantage played and no whistle blown. So the ref missed a handball and the keeper assumed he could take a free even though he didn't hear a whistle. Tough.

Wile E. Coyote

mangaroosh wrote: »

which one is it though? which should he do?

This is at the ref's discretion. If he decides to play on then that’s what happens. You can't play on and just because the player f***s it up turn around and say 'here you messed that one up have another go'.

Team A player fouls the ball, Ref does not indicate a free or advantage.
Team B player places ball for a free-kick (using his hands)
Team A player takes control of the ball and plays on.
What should the ref do?

The question for you to answer is what should player B do. The ref hasn't awarded a free-kick so should he be taking one?

If he didn't see it, then the advantage rule doesn't apply, as no advantage was being played.
He is informed about an infringement he didn't see, that leads to the infringing player gaining an advantage.

If he didn't see it then there is no foul then play continues. When he is informed he then makes the decision as to whether player B had an advantage at the time. The decision about the advantage is based on whether player B had the ball and was in a position to move forward. It is not based on what happens during the course of the following 15-20seconds and whether Team B actual benefit from the advantage.

niallo27

deisedevil wrote: »

Worst of all though, there are some who have been banging on about Clattenburg playing advantage. There was no advantage played and no whistle blown. So the ref missed a handball and the keeper assumed he could take a free even though he didn't hear a whistle. Tough.

Yes i agree but when the lineman calls him over and say i saw a handball, and clattenburg says what handball, common sense should have prevailed and a free kick should have being given, gomes was a tit for what he did, but clattenburg should have the balls to give the free kick

Le King

niallo27 wrote: »

If you take off the red goggles there you'll see that when nani went to ground, there was no defender near him, he got a slight tug back but it was no pen

I saw a lot of your posts on here and I can't take you seriously. You are one of the most blinkered fans on here. Bold bit is a bit stupid tbh.

Ush1 wrote: »

Funny how bad officiating is okay with some once it "evens out". Two wrongs do make a right it seems.

I agree with that it doesn't. But where is the wrong in the Nani goal? A chain of events leads to something. You can't just pick up where you like and judge it from a small perspective. The penalty incident is as important here.

Then again you can't expect referees to get everything right.

It was a penalty, and the goal was awarded correctly. One wrong, one right both for and against Manchester United.

Maybe Spuds should play better next time. Time to move on yet?

niallo27

Le King wrote: »

I saw a lot of your posts on here and I can't take you seriously. You are one of the most blinkered fans on here. Bold bit is a bit stupid tbh.



I agree with that it doesn't. But where is the wrong in the Nani goal? A chain of events leads to something. You can't just pick up where you like and judge it from a small perspective. The penalty incident is as important here.

Then again you can't expect referees to get everything right.

It was a penalty, and the goal was awarded correctly. One wrong, one right both for and against Manchester United.

Maybe Spuds should play better next time. Time to move on yet?

Why is it stupid he was tugged back, he kept playing, he knew he couldnt get the ball and dived, even the most blinkered utd fan will admit that.

Its easy to move on when utd are on the favorable side of a decision once again
How does the song go

We are man utd and we do what we want
So true

deisedevil

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes i agree but when the lineman calls him over and say i saw a handball, and clattenburg says what handball, common sense should have prevailed and a free kick should have being given, gomes was a tit for what he did, but clattenburg should have the balls to give the free kick

We don't know what the linesman said though. He might not have called him over about a handball or what he said to the ref might not have seemed clear cut and wasn't enough to convince Clattenburg that it should be a free out and he would then have to just go with what he thought to begin with.

He didn't see it himself and followed the rules accordingly.

niallo27

deisedevil wrote: »

We don't know what the linesman said though. He might not have called him over about a handball or what he said to the ref might not have seemed clear cut and wasn't enough to convince Clattenburg that it should be a free out and he would then have to just go with what he thought to begin with.

He didn't see it himself and followed the rules accordingly.

Did ferdinand not say in his twitter ****e thing, that the linesman had seen the handball and thats why he called him over, and if the linesman didnt see that handball from 20 yards away with no player in his way, i dont think he should give up the game

deisedevil

niallo27 wrote: »

Why is it stupid he was tugged back, he kept playing, he knew he couldnt get the ball and dived, even the most blinkered utd fan will admit that.

Its easy to move on when utd are on the favorable side of a decision once again
How does the song go

We are man utd and we do what we want
So true

Within the rules of the game that was a penalty.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/nani-tottenham-longer-version-7379630/ Go to 23 seconds and watch from there, first tug wasn't too bad and didn't hinder Nani too much, second tug was with two hands and he pulled his jersey down and clearly held him up. Either way you can't pull on a players jersey anywhere on the pitch and Nani could have been through on goal in this case. If Nani hadn't been touched at all then United could have been 2 up anyways. Penalty wasn't given and ref made a mistake with that before he made any other mistake.

Same as with so many other games you could complain all day about a ref missing an incident but what's the point. Refs are human and they make mistakes and that will happen for either team. There's no good will come of adding up the injustices for both sides.

United deserved the win one way or the other I feel.

deisedevil

niallo27 wrote: »

Did ferdinand not say in his twitter ****e thing, that the linesman had seen the handball and thats why he called him over, and if the linesman didnt see that handball from 20 yards away with no player in his way, i dont think he should give up the game

Ya that's true. He does say alright that linesman told the ref it was a handball but we have no way of knowing what else was said in that conversation.

lordgoat

mangaroosh wrote: »

this is a not uncommon way of placing a ball for a relatively quick free-kick

Actually normally when i take a uick free kick it's drop the ball directly at my feet one hand on top to show it's not moving and then play it.

Out goalie though when he has time to take a kick out and there's no forwards close by will spin the ball out in front of him... Much like Gomes did actually.

You're complete blindness to this is becoming tiresome.

niallo27 wrote: »

Why is it stupid he was tugged back, he kept playing, he knew he couldnt get the ball and dived, even the most blinkered utd fan will admit that.

Its easy to move on when utd are on the favorable side of a decision once again
How does the song go

We are man utd and we do what we want
So true

Here niallo i thought such a hardened United fan as yourself would know the chant goes.

WE'LL DO WHAT WE WANT WE'LL DO WHAT WE WANT. WE'RE MAN UNITED. WE'LL DO WHAT WE WANT.

roosh

sneakyST wrote: »

Well if it was a free kick, and it wasnt as no whistle was blown, the referee would quickly move it back to the correct place and the assistant would be holding the flag out to indicate the location of the free kick. None of which occurred so your point is not relevant.

the above doesn't happen for the majority of free-kicks (with regard to the linesman) and frequently doesn't happen with regard to the ref

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

How about we discuss the fact that you pretended for ages on this thread that Clattenburg had actually said afterwards he was playing advantage just so your point would look valid?

discuss away.

we can discuss all the potential eventualities, of whether he saw it or not, and each one leads to the conclusion - when reason is considered - that he should have brought it back for a free.

roosh

Le King wrote: »

Or what about the fact that Spuds fans should stop whining, they got away with a blatant penalty and their keeper is a tit.

You got lucky with that not being a peno then scream bloody murder because your keeper lacks a brain.

Classy.

It could quite easily have been a peno, but the ref decided it wasn't.

He did however, either decide it was a handball, not award it and play advantage without indicating he was doing so, and contribute to the concession of a goal, which he then deemed to be an advantage.

or

he didn't see it, was subsequenlty informed about it, and did nothing about it.


either way, his reasoning was highly suspect, as it may well have been in not awarding the penalty.

Allowing the goal to stand was poor refereeing.

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

Worst of all though, there are some who have been banging on about Clattenburg playing advantage. There was no advantage played and no whistle blown. So the ref missed a handball and the keeper assumed he could take a free even though he didn't hear a whistle. Tough.

but then was subsequently informed about the handball, and is guilty of ignoring it, when he should have brought it back.

Mars Bar

mangaroosh wrote: »

but then was subsequently informed about the handball, and is guilty of ignoring it, when he should have brought it back.

It's at the referees discretion!
He doesn't have to do anything the linesman says!

sneakyST

mangaroosh wrote: »

the above doesn't happen for the majority of free-kicks (with regard to the linesman) and frequently doesn't happen with regard to the ref

When was the last time you refereed a game or were an assistant referee?

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

discuss away.

we can discuss all the potential eventualities, of whether he saw it or not, and each one leads to the conclusion - when reason is considered - that he should have brought it back for a free.

That has nothing to do with what I said to you.

"How about we discuss the fact that you pretended for ages on this thread that Clattenburg had actually said afterwards he was playing advantage just so your point would look valid?"

How about you answer as to why you made many references to the a suposed statement from Clattenburg that never even existed just to back up an incorrect point you made?

mangaroosh wrote: »

but then was subsequently informed about the handball, and is guilty of ignoring it, when he should have brought it back.

That could be true but again you have no idea what the exact conversation was and Clattenburg might not have been happy to take the linesmans advice on board for reasons that we don't know about.

roosh

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

This is at the ref's discretion. If he decides to play on then that’s what happens. You can't play on and just because the player f***s it up turn around and say 'here you messed that one up have another go'.

Exactly, it is at the referees discretion, which is why the question of what should the ref do. Ultimately he did decide to play on, but the question is, was he right in doing so? A simple yes does not suffice.

With this comes two scenarios:
a) either he saw the handball and played advantage, without indicating so, and is subsequently called by his assistant
b) he didn't see it, and was subsequently informed about it.

If he saw it then he played advantage, but failed to indicate so, and it becomes clear that his lack of communication contributed to the 'keeper's confusion, which resulted in the concession of a goal, for the team that was due the advantage.

He must decide if the advantage, he was playing, had accrued.

However, the team that was given the advantage, conceded a goal, which didn't come after a subsequent move, it came as a direct result of the incident at hand - which the ref contributed to, with his own lack of communication.

The claim is that by the goalkeeper having the ball in his hands, he has gained the advantage, this however, is only true if he is aware that he can play the ball from his hands. He wasn't, and this is largely due to the referee's lack of communication.

While Gomes should have been aware that he could play the ball from his hands, the referee should have made him aware that he could do so - shrugging shoulders does not suffice. So the ref contributed to the concession of a goal. Does this, in the referees mind constitute advantage? If so why?



Alternatively he wasn't aware of the handball, was subsequently informed about it, and should have brought it back.

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

The question for you to answer is what should player B do. The ref hasn't awarded a free-kick so should he be taking one?

The final decision is the ref's, so his is the important one.

If player B plays on, as he should do, the same question can be asked of the ref.

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

If he didn't see it then there is no foul then play continues. When he is informed he then makes the decision as to whether player B had an advantage at the time. The decision about the advantage is based on whether player B had the ball and was in a position to move forward. It is not based on what happens during the course of the following 15-20seconds and whether Team B actual benefit from the advantage.

The same issue arises, how does an incident which ultimately results - directly - in the concession of a goal, constitute an advantage.

Again, it is entirely at the referee's discretion, and it is his reasoning on that issue that is being challenged. If an infringement occurs, that he was not aware of, and a goal is conceded directly from that incident, then he should bring it back.


Gomes having the ball in his hands was not an advantage, because he thought it was a free, influenced directly by the ref's poor communication.

roosh

Le King wrote: »

I agree with that it doesn't. But where is the wrong in the Nani goal?

the handball

Le King wrote: »

A chain of events leads to something. You can't just pick up where you like and judge it from a small perspective. The penalty incident is as important here.

Pick up from where the ref made a decision about the penalty.

Le King wrote: »

Then again you can't expect referees to get everything right.

indeed, and he got this one wrong

Le King wrote: »

It was a penalty, and the goal was awarded correctly. One wrong, one right both for and against Manchester United.

It quite probably should have been, but penalty claims like that often get waved away, particularly when the player goes to ground late, when he has got away from the unfair challenge.

There was also a handball in there which should have been penalised.

Professey Chin

I swear im after reading the same arguments in here from both sides about 60 times over the last 10 pages.
Nobodys gonna agree on anything so can we put this to bed? Its done, nothings happening, goal stands, nothing gonna happen to the ref, yadda yadda yadda.
Christ I hope something happens in the games tonight or tomorrow to move on from this

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

Gomes having the ball in his hands was not an advantage, because he thought it was a free, influenced directly by the ref's poor communication.

Nope. Gomes decided himself it was a free, we can all understand why, but the fact still remains that the whistle never blew for a free and the ref never said it was a free. The method of communictaion for a free would have been to blow the whistle and the there is no method of communication for when there isn't a free. A hard lesson for Gomes.

deisedevil

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

I swear im after reading the same arguments in here from both sides about 60 times over the last 10 pages.
Nobodys gonna agree on anything so can we put this to bed? Its done, nothings happening, goal stands, nothing gonna happen to the ref, yadda yadda yadda.
Christ I hope something happens in the games tonight or tomorrow to move on from this

Best not to read it so I would say. I never read any debates in threads that I'm not interested in, I just ignore them.

Professey Chin

deisedevil wrote: »

Best not to read it so I would say. I never read any debates in threads that I'm not interested in, I just ignore them.

Im a whore for threads with new posts

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

Within the rules of the game that was a penalty.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/nani-tottenham-longer-version-7379630/ Go to 23 seconds and watch from there, first tug wasn't too bad and didn't hinder Nani too much, second tug was with two hands and he pulled his jersey down and clearly held him up. Either way you can't pull on a players jersey anywhere on the pitch and Nani could have been through on goal in this case. If Nani hadn't been touched at all then United could have been 2 up anyways. Penalty wasn't given and ref made a mistake with that before he made any other mistake.

Same as with so many other games you could complain all day about a ref missing an incident but what's the point. Refs are human and they make mistakes and that will happen for either team. There's no good will come of adding up the injustices for both sides.

United deserved the win one way or the other I feel.

it should definitely have been a penalty.

I honestly believe though it should have been a free-kick subsequently.

As for United deserving to win, I thought a draw would not have been an unfair result.

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

it should definitely have been a penalty.

I honestly believe though it should have been a free-kick subsequently.

As for United deserving to win, I thought a draw would not have been an unfair result.

But if you go along with the fact that it should have been a penalty then that would have meant 2-0 to United (assuming it was scored), that would have been the fair result.
Funnily enough it ended up 2-0 to United. lol.

roosh

lordgoat wrote: »

Actually normally when i take a uick free kick it's drop the ball directly at my feet one hand on top to show it's not moving and then play it.

Indeed, that is to take a very quick free kick, and when taking a more precise free-kick, players carefully place the ball.

lordgoat wrote: »

Out goalie though when he has time to take a kick out and there's no forwards close by will spin the ball out in front of him... Much like Gomes did actually.

Goalkeepers in particular, when taking a dead ball, will often spin the ball out just like that.

roosh

mars bar wrote: »

It's at the referees discretion!
He doesn't have to do anything the linesman says!

exactly, but if he was informed about a handball and didn't punish it, then it was an incorrect decision, according to the rules of the game

roosh

sneakyST wrote: »

When was the last time you refereed a game or were an assistant referee?

few years ago.

the linesman rarely indicates where a free should be taken from, if the ref awards it, unless it is for an offside, or the assistant flags for an infringement.

frees frequently get taken from the incorrect place, without getting called back

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

That has nothing to do with what I said to you.

How about you answer as to why you made many references to the a suposed statement from Clattenburg that never even existed just to back up an incorrect point you made?

As I said discuss away. As for the references made, it was on the basis of the independent article that was posted. Indeed there was little objection to the assumption, until such time as it was hoped that such a challenge could possibly derail the argument.

It was of course irrelevant, as all eventualities can be discussed, and, dare I say, have been. The only possible scenario where the ref has any ground to stand on, is the scenario where he played advantage, and even then it is incredibly shaky ground.

deisedevil wrote: »

That could be true but again you have no idea what the exact conversation was and Clattenburg might not have been happy to take the linesmans advice on board for reasons that we don't know about.

we can use deductive reasoning to figure out, to a relative degree of probability what it might have been. We can even discuss the potential topics of conversation, from the relevant, to the wholly irrelevant.

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

Nope. Gomes decided himself it was a free, we can all understand why, but the fact still remains that the whistle never blew for a free and the ref never said it was a free. The method of communictaion for a free would have been to blow the whistle and the there is no method of communication for when there isn't a free. A hard lesson for Gomes.

if we accept that scenario as true, then we are left with what happened subsequently.

No whistle, no free - presumably no advantage being played.

He then consults with his linesman and is informed about the handball, play should be brought back for the free.

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

Best not to read it so I would say. I never read any debates in threads that I'm not interested in, I just ignore them.

I have to say I agree

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

But if you go along with the fact that it should have been a penalty then that would have meant 2-0 to United (assuming it was scored), that would have been the fair result.
Funnily enough it ended up 2-0 to United. lol.

that's only if we assume that the penalty was scored

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

exactly, but if he was informed about a handball and didn't punish it, then it was an incorrect decision, according to the rules of the game

I don't even have to look at the rules of the game to know that's not correct. It's up to the ref to listen to his assitants and then make up his own mind.

For some reason, which none of us can be sure of, he decided he couldn't go along with the advice of the linesman and couldn't give a free out.
Either the linesman wasn't convincing enough and couldn't be sure about something or the ref was being stubborn in which case he was wrong and should have listened to him. But one way or the other he doesn't have to listen to him.

sneakyST

mangaroosh wrote: »

few years ago.

the linesman rarely indicates where a free should be taken from, if the ref awards it, unless it is for an offside, or the assistant flags for an infringement.

frees frequently get taken from the incorrect place, without getting called back

I didn't say it happens for the majority of free kicks but it will happen if the free kick is taken from the wrong place, such as what Gomez thought he was doing.

Free kicks are taken with a couple of yards of the offence, any further than that and they are brought back. If they weren't, believe me, you would be getting an earful from players.

Anyway I can see that you have made your mind up rather than take on board my experience

deisedevil

mangaroosh wrote: »

that's only if we assume that the penalty was scored

Read my post again, that's exactly what I said.

Same thing I said to Spurs fans on saturday who were raging about the fact they could have equalised if Nani's goal hadn't been given, that would only be assuming they actually scored.

lordgoat

deisedevil wrote: »

Read my post again, that's exactly what I said.

Same thing I said to Spurs fans on saturday who were raging about the fact they could have equalised if Nani's goal hadn't been given, that would only be assuming they actually scored.

Yeah spurs were never going to score once VDV went off. I'm friends with a few reasonable ones and they agree that united just pinged the ball around the pitch once he was gone. It was very easy, i think if Nani's final shot had gone it, it would have been a much fairer result.

Spurs apart from VDV and one bale run, barely threatened. Easier win than last weekend imo.

roosh

deisedevil wrote: »

I don't even have to look at the rules of the game to know that's not correct. It's up to the ref to listen to his assitants and then make up his own mind.

For some reason, which none of us can be sure of, he decided he couldn't go along with the advice of the linesman and couldn't give a free out.
Either the linesman wasn't convincing enough and couldn't be sure about something or the ref was being stubborn in which case he was wrong and should have listened to him. But one way or the other he doesn't have to listen to him.

Completely agree, it is entirely at the referee's discretion, and this particular incident is not really legislated for in the rules of the game, so he has to use his own personal judgement.

If he didn't see the handball, and the linesman informs him that the handball occurred, then according to the rules of the game, he should award a free kick. He doesn't have to give it, but he should. Just as he doesn't have to give any free-kick for any offence, but according to the rules of the game, he should.

If he was aware of the handball, and was playing advantage.....well that argument has been made. If he was unaware of it and was made aware of it, then the only possible way it shouldn't have been brought back, is if the handball was deemed to be accidental. If this was the case, then it was another extremely poor decision by the officials.

roosh

sneakyST wrote: »

I didn't say it happens for the majority of free kicks but it will happen if the free kick is taken from the wrong place, such as what Gomez thought he was doing.

Free kicks are taken with a couple of yards of the offence, any further than that and they are brought back. If they weren't, believe me, you would be getting an earful from players.

Anyway I can see that you have made your mind up rather than take on board my experience

You're saying that it will get brought back if it isn't taken from the right place, but free-kicks regularly get taken from the wrong place, and don't always get brought back, especially those inside a teams own third of the field, and especially free-kicks taken by a goalkeeper in his own box.

That's not to say that they will never get brought back, but they quite often don't.

It is not uncommon to see a foul happen centrally where the ball breaks to a full back, about 20yds or so form his own goal, and 10yds or more from where an incident occurs, for hin to then take the free anf for it not to be brought back.

Just reading through the rules of the game, and it doesn't look like it is expressly stated, that a free-kick inside the penalty area, has to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred

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

whereas it is expressly stated for free-kicks outside the penalty area

Free kick outside the penalty area
• all opponents must be at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball until it is in
play
• the ball is in play when it is kicked and moves
• the free kick is taken from the place where the infringement occurred or
from the position of the ball when the infringement occurred (according to
the infringement)

Rules of the game

I though I came across something that made that provision, but I cannot find it now, so I may have been wrong, but according to that, there is nothing that says a free to the defending team, in their own penalty area has to be taken from the exact spot, where the infringement occurred.
Open to correction though - with reference to the rules of the game.

roosh

lordgoat wrote: »

Yeah spurs were never going to score once VDV went off. I'm friends with a few reasonable ones and they agree that united just pinged the ball around the pitch once he was gone. It was very easy, i think if Nani's final shot had gone it, it would have been a much fairer result.

Spurs apart from VDV and one bale run, barely threatened. Easier win than last weekend imo.

there's no disputing that, but that isn't a valid reason as to why the goal should have stood

EDIT: no disputing that United were the better team second half, but were still only one goal to the good