Nani, Gomes and THAT Goal

[sten_super]

Then why didn't he do the \ / sign to indicate 'advantage' then ?

Gomes had the ball. Spurs were in their own penalty area, not on the attack, so there was no "advantage" to play, he was just giving them the opportunity to get on with it quickly.

Unfortunately for Spurs, Gomes was too thick to realise, and instead started lining up to take a free kick ten yards from where the incident took place, and with no whistle having been blown. If Gomes wasn't so retarded, there wouldn't have been an issue.

I really don't understand the fuss over this. Gomes has a complete and total mental breakdown, not only in attempting to take a free kick which wasn't given, or in attempting to then steal a further ten years, but also in the fact that for some completely unknown reason as soon as he realises the free kick hasn't been given, rather than hoofing the ball downfield he backs away and leaves it to Nani. Attempts to blame the goal on anyone else is nonsense. I'm quite happy to criticise referees when they make decisions which directly lead to goals, but this one is all down to the 'keeper.

 

[Easy 10]

Absolutely Sten.
Unfortunately for Clatterburg, when he didn't whistle and said to play on, he didn't take into account Gomes's towering stupidity, and so has ended up kopping a load of flak as a result.

The lino muddied the waters after the event by calling the ref over once Nani had scored, but Clattenburgs original decision was perfectly sound and within the rules, and he was dead right to stick to it. Its not his fault Gomes is a cretin.

 

[Mellotron]

I'm not disagreeing, you didn't really address my question though, which for me is the reason confusion reigned.

 

[drew]

If Clattenburg had played an advantage it would have been because the ball was in Gomez's hands which it probably easier to distribute from than a free kick 6 yrds from the goal line.

As regards playing advantage, referees don't seem to have the capacity to bring play back when an advantage hasn't materialised. We all know in rugby that play can go on for some time before it is brought back and that is what is needed in football but I doubt the football refs would have the intelligence to implement it. Even now they will play an advantage and a player can be immediately tackled thus negating the advantage but how many times do you see the ref bring play back. Can't remembering it happening once.

 

[The Hon Sec]

Yet again ......... Clattenburgs decision was correct as to the laws of the game but not the spirit of the game. How can an offence by Nani (handball) not be given and he be allowed to score as a result. Gomes' hesitation doesnt help the situation but the ref should manage the whole episode to ensure the correct outcome. Thats what hes there for.
Book Nani for the handball, second yellow for ungentlemanly conduct when he put the ball in the net and send him off. And as for Ferdinand ......

 

[Easy 10]

Have you EVER heard a ref just say "play on" after a deliberate handball, in the history of football? Doubt it.

I'm not disagreeing, you didn't really address my question though, which for me is the reason confusion reigned.

OK, it was a deliberate handball by Nani, but not one where he was actively seeking to gain advantage during a passage of play (ie punching it into the net, sneakily helping it on or whatever). Nani was just being a petulant arse because the ref hadn't been fooled by his dive.

Gomes then scooped the ball up and trotted forward, so instead of blowing the whistle and hauling it back for a pointless free kick for Nani's handball, as Gomes had the ball anway the ref just decided to let play carry on.

Clattenburg was probably horrified when he realised Gomes's brain had stopped functioning and a farcical goal was the result, but what could he do ? He'd not played advantage, so he couldn't call it back.

100% the keepers fault, but of course in this game the ref HAS to get the blame from the players and the manager because, well, thats just what they do isn't it.

 

[The Hon Sec]

Certainly have seen the ref bring back play if advantage hasnt materialised on a number of occasions.

 

[Easy 10]

Yet again ......... Clattenburgs decision was correct as to the laws of the game but not the spirit of the game.

And this is where referees can never win.

Everyone demands consistancy from referees, then when they apply the rules to the letter of the law, they get accused to not refereeing "to the spirit of the game".

Do you want the laws of the game applied with consistancy, or the "spirit" of the game applied ? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Acker79]

Clattenburg was probably horrified when he realised Gomes's brain had stopped functioning and a farcical goal was the result, but what could he do ? He'd not played advantage, so he couldn't call it back.

He can call it back. The ref has the authority to stop the game at his discretion for infringements, as I quoted from the law book in an earlier post.

I don't disagree that Gomes was an idiot and the cause of the whole situation, but that doesn't mean the ref and Nani acted flawlessly. All three made mistakes, and need to learn from them.

 

[Acker79]

Even now they will play an advantage and a player can be immediately tackled thus negating the advantage but how many times do you see the ref bring play back. Can't remembering it happening once.

It happened several times in the game v yeovil last weekend.

 

[Easy 10]

He can call it back. The ref has the authority to stop the game at his discretion for infringements, as I quoted from the law book in an earlier post.

I don't disagree that Gomes was an idiot and the cause of the whole situation, but that doesn't mean the ref and Nani acted flawlessly. All three made mistakes, and need to learn from them.

The ref had acknowledged the original infringement (handball) already though, and just decided to let play go on as Gomes already had the ball. Between Gomes putting the ball down and Nani putting it in the net, there WERN'T any further infringements to make a call on, so what could he have disallowed the goal for ?

He could've made a "spirit of the game" call I suppose, changed his mind and retrospectively given the free kick for the handball after all, once Gomes had made such a hash of things. But thats not within the rules, so you'd have had Fergie going pink at the gills for disallowing it.

Refs just can't win sometimes.

Its just fortunate that this wasn't a result-changing goal and was at the fag-end of the game, otherwise either 'arry or Fergie would've had the ref hauled over the coals depending on his decision and who it favoured.

 

[The Hon Sec]

Good point Easy 10 but substitute 'common sense' for 'spirit of the game'. Referees no longer appear have the authority to use common sense. Applying the letter of the law in this case resulted in an outcome that the referee did not intend to happen (at least I hope not)

 

[Marc]

The way I see it:

1- It was a penalty, Nani was tripped
2- Nani should'nt of held onto the ball but alot of players do this so dont see the fuss over it
3- Gomes obviously "Presumed" it was a freekick for the handball
4- Gomes should not of carried the ball 10yards away then ask questions to the Ref and Lino
5- After the Ref waved away the Spurs players and chatted to the Lino he should've then Booked Ferdinand for simply being there in his face.....does'nt surprise me with Rio he is a cock of the highest order and does this all the time.

Conclusion- Its a Goal in my book, Gomes was being thick, Rio is a twat!

 

[sten_super]

Refs just can't win sometimes.

The ongoing debate in Scotland is another great illustration of that. Ref in the Celtic-Dundee Utd game makes a poor decision, realises the error of his ways and corrects it, and STILL gets lambasted from all sides, including the referees association!

 

[keaton]

I think were advantage is concerned, they should have give themselves more time to bring it back for a free-kick like in Rugby

 

[Easy 10]

Good point Easy 10 but substitute 'common sense' for 'spirit of the game'. Referees no longer appear have the authority to use common sense. Applying the letter of the law in this case resulted in an outcome that the referee did not intend to happen (at least I hope not)

The trouble is though, common sense is all well and good if you benefit from the decision. But whoevers on the receiving end will just bleat on about "the inconsistancy of referees".

If you want consistancy, then you HAVE to have the rules applied to the letter of the law. Unfortunately theres no room for common sense, because you're just making grey areas, where different refs will make different calls.

 

[Mellotron]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/clattenburg--content-with-his-decision-to-play-advantage-2121878.html

So...Clattenburg DID play advantage, yet gave Gomes NO indication that he had, thus, confusion.

Sorry, but ref's fault for me. YES Gomes is a thicket, but the referee being incredibly vague was the cause of the problem in the first place.

Also, if he did "play advantage" as he himself has said, why did he not pull it back when advantage was not forthcoming?

EDIT: If you read further down the article, Clattenburg himself admits to being at least partially at fault for not making it clear to Gomes.

 

[Acker79]

Refs just can't win sometimes.

If you want consistancy, then you HAVE to have the rules applied to the letter of the law. Unfortunately theres no room for common sense, because you're just making grey areas, where different refs will make different calls.

I totally agree, and I'm usually one to defend referees, and even in this case I think I've been fair in not hammering him over it, and putting the bulk of the blame on Gomes.

The problem with this incident, and perhaps with the laws themselves in this case, is that however it played out: either the goal being given, or if he had used his discretion/authority to bring play back and give the free kick for handball Clattenberg would have been acting to the letter the law.

 

[Easy 10]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/clattenburg--content-with-his-decision-to-play-advantage-2121878.html

So...Clattenburg DID play advantage, yet gave Gomes NO indication that he had, thus, confusion.

Sorry, but ref's fault for me. YES Gomes is a thicket, but the referee being incredibly vague was the cause of the problem in the first place.

Also, if he did "play advantage" as he himself has said, why did he not pull it back when advantage was not forthcoming?

EDIT: If you read further down the article, Clattenburg himself admits to being at least partially at fault for not making it clear to Gomes.

"Has told friends"
"Has said in private"



I think the jury is still out on whether Clattenburg has ACTUALLY told anyone that he "played an advantage".

 

[Mellotron]

Bit of a pointless thing to make up innit?