Nani vs Spurs – Goal or No Goal?
Nani’s goal for Manchester United against Tottenham at Old Trafford has caused a lot of debate. ESPN called it ‘a farce’, BBC called it ‘controversial’, Tottenham’s official website went for ‘bizarre’ but should it have stood?
Lets start at the top. It all started when Nani ran into the penalty area, went down and claimed a penalty. In falling over he handled the ball deliberately. Now this should of been a free kick however referee Mark Clattenburg didn’t have the best view and probably didn’t see the handball. At no point did either the referee or his assistant on that side indicate a free kick had been or should be given at the time of the foul. Clattenburg doesn’t blow his whistle therefore the ball is still in open play. Even if the linesman had indicated for a free kick, the referee does not have to give it and can just call play on. The whistle stops the game not the flag.
After Nani handled the ball, Gomes picked the ball up walked forward 10 yards and put the ball down as if to take a free kick. There are a few problems with his thinking here:
1. The free kick has not been given so the ball is in open play.
2. You can never assume you have been given a free kick.
3. If he thought it was a free kick why did he walk forward 10 yards before placing the ball down? Even if everyone does it, gaining an advantage by taking a free kick in a different place to the incident is breaking the rules to gain an advantage, which is rather similar to the definition of cheating, so he gets no sympathy from me here.
4. What is drummed into every child when they take up football? Play to the whistle!!!
As Gomes put the ball down he didn’t just hoof it away. He gave United enough time to have a discussion about the rules before Nani decides to kick the ball in. If Gomes heard a whistle then maybe I will give him a bit of sympathy but it wasn’t a whistle from the referee so no free kick was given and therefore Nani was fully entitled to kick the ball into the net. Perhaps it was a bit unsportsmanlike but the amount of sportsmanship is decreasing in the game, though thats another story. Gomes virtually put the ball on a plate for Nani and who would turn down a chance like that.
The replays I have seen so far haven’t shown what the linesman did after the goal but according to some reports he appeared to disallow the goal. Disallowing goals isn’t a power in the assistant’s repertoire, so he didn’t rule it out. He probably suggested that it should be and rightly called the referee over for a discussion. Now another problem arises, the linesman may well have decided at this point to say that Nani handled the ball and it should of been a free kick. But if this is the case he is as guilty as Gomes for assuming a free kick had been given.
At this point Clattenburg could have responded in a number of ways. He could have said “Well if thats right, you should have flagged it up to me at the time, I didn’t give a free kick so I will allow the goal to stand.” Or he could have said “It wasn’t a foul, there was no free kick, it’s a fair goal”.
One thing that has been mentioned is that Clattenburg played advantage. Now if he did say that than he has made a mistake. He didn’t give a free kick but he should signal for advantage. And perhaps this would have been a better signal to make rather than standing there shrugging his shoulders. However allowing the goal was the right decision in the end.
I’m not a body language expert but Clattenburg looked frustrated to me after Nani put the ball in the net. I am pretty sure he knew that he would be on the back pages on Sunday morning and he was probably imagining what happened the day after he didn’t allow Mendes’ ‘goal’ a few years ago.
In conclusion it’s a poor decision by the referee and the assistant not to give a free kick but as they hadn’t it’s a fair goal and Nani was well within his right to score. In the circumstances the correct call was made but no doubt Mark Clattenburg will be demoted to the Championship next week for his trouble.
English Premier League, Manchester United, Nani, Tottenham HotspurShare This Post!
About Joe Tompkins
I am an FA Level 1 coach and a Level 7 Referee. I wrote about Paraguay during the 2010 World Cup and hope to write about a variety of topics during the next season. Follow me on Twitter @JoeTheRef
20 Comments
Trackbacks
RSS
Subscribe to our RSS Feed
-
23 for 2010 – Brazil: World Cup squad analysis
-
Transfer Talk: Who should Arsenal target this summer?
-
Algeria 0-4 Egypt: Sweet Revenge / How To Lose The Plot Completely
-
The Wilshere Ultimatum: What Jack Wilshere’s exclusion from Under-21 duty says about English football
-
Koscielny Red Card Highlights Inconsistent Refereeing
-
Serie A on Goodbye Gattuso: End of a Milan love affair
-
-
Remy Kelvin on Philippe Coutinho: The trouble when promise meets expectation
-
Jonathan F on Philippe Coutinho: The trouble when promise meets expectation
-
Just Football presents…
He puts the ball down in line with the assistant referee, as he thought it was a free kick. The assistant ref was standing by the edge of the 18 yard box so that’s why Gomes puts the ball down 10 yards ahead
Not sure whether you are referring to the assistant or Gomes here, but I saw nothing to indicate the assistant thought it was a free kick
For a referee,I am amazed at the lack of consideration and the writer appears to have referee vision. Firstly perhaps Joe can give examples of where a goalkeeper has taken a free kick from the byeline in the six yards are. It’s never done and is a bit disingenious?dishonest to infer this is the normal practice. When Nani was doing his theatricals where did he fall? It seems to be accepted and appears that Joe is in agreement, that assistant referees are treated with conbtempt by referees. Perhaps Joe might explain their purpose.He reeferes to the advantage possibility but in general it has been applied to give attacking players the advantage and is brought back for a free kick if nothing is gained. I appreciate that the writer makes several assumptions based on the use of the word probably rather than possibly.
What trouble me most about the article is that the writer is qualified to officiate and coach basically young players but comments “who would turn down a chance like that” as an endorsement of Nani’s action. Given no reproof or condemnation of unsporting behaviour I worry fo the kids Joe is involved with. No wonder I watch young kids in the park throwing themselves to the ground and aping the cheating of some of the top players. With coaches and referees not acting in the best interests of the kids or football in general I despair for the future of the game.
You make some very good points. I was generally referring to whether the goal was legal in relation to the laws of the game rather than in the spirit of the game. Nowadays in the professional game players will do all they can to win. In the sentence before I did mention it was unsportsmanlike but perhaps I didn’t make this clear enough. I assure you the kids you see ‘throwing themselves to the ground’ aren’t coached by me. If I spotted one of my players doing this I would have a word with them as soon as possible. I do think blaming the coaches for this is slightly harsh. Cheating is not encouraged, it just isn’t discouraged. As you will read in one of my previous articles (http://www.just-football.com/2010/09/youth-football-should-we-let-children-win-and-lose/) i think youth football is far too competitive and should be about enjoyment. I’m not saying I’m the perfect coach, youth football does have a problem and it needs stamping out. I do think that assistant referees should be followed more in general. I have noticed some referees do tend to appear arrogant and assume they are always right. I once had a disagreement with an assistant at a youth football match. He was a dad who had done it voluntarily and he flagged for a foul throw against the other team to the one his son played for. I said play on and the team scored. He then said something along the lines of ‘I stopped the game, it was a foul throw’, I replied ‘I didn’t think it was so I played on’ to which he said “Well what am I here for then?”. He made a good point and I was always a bit more careful when overruling assistant’s decisions from then.
And finally goalkeepers always put the ball forward for free kicks. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but it shouldn’t. However it is a bit pointless being strict in this case and I take your point.
If its not a goal its a penalty as far as I’m concerned. Not to mention that the incident had no real bearing on the final result as United were already 1-0 up at the time. All the indignation from various pundits and media outlets just smacks of anti-United hyperbole.
No blame to Nani. He looks askance at the ref, the ref shrugs. Scholes, a far more senior professional starts bombing forward (and presumably shouting to stop fanning about and bloody shoot) so he sticks it in. As far as I’m concerned, Nani should play by the letter of the law and let the ref sort everything else out.
I don’t see it as any worse than Bale playing on when the ball had clearly crossed the byline.
On the subject if the linesman- am I right in thinking that there’s a difference between him raising his flag and him waving it? I thought the former means he wants a word with the ref, the latter that he’s seen an infringement. I might have made that up. But if that’s right he wasn’t disallowing the goal, just checking with the ref that he’d seen thr handball & played advantage.
Ben you are exactly right with your point about the assistant. He raised his flag so the ref could see it and pressed the buzzer, then called him over to discuss it. At no point did he indicate a foul or that the goal should be disallowed.
I don’t agree that it should have been a pen as the contact was minimal, but i do agree that it would have had no bearing on the final result as we never looked like scoring. Clattenberg was supposed to be playing advantage to spurs, and like any other advantage in the game he could have called it back for a free kick when the team with the so called advantage didn’t get it. Gomes made a mistake in not playing to the whistle but he had to pull the ball with force out of Nani’s hand to get the ball off him (surely this now has to be a dead ball), then Nani writhes around on the floor as if he has been punched in the face. If this was down the other end of the pitch do you think Sir Alex would have had the same opinion or do you think he would be saying what Harry Redknapp is quoting?
I am 99% sure Ferguson would be saying exactly the same thing as Redknapp. But the ball isn’t dead until the ref blows the whistle. Clattenburg hasn’t covered himself in glory here but under the laws of the game he did make the correct decision.
The goal should not have stood thankfully it was not 0-0 at the time otherwise even more hell would have broken loose. As for if not it was a penalty well that goes with the rule that if someone blows on a Man U player at Old Trafford then its a penalty. Nani was not touched and if the rules were truly being obeyed to the letter then he should have been sent off as it was the second time he had dived in the game in the area. However some common sense did prevail over that. Even more strange then that common sense did not with the goal. When viewing from Clatterbrain’s view point he could not see the hand ball as Nani’s body is in the so he could not therefore give it. Gomes is wrong to have assumed that hand ball had been given and if in doubt take no chances. However the Linesman HAD spotted it and as soon as Nani then looks to take advantage he immediately raises his flag. Now the next point the Spurs players respected the leagues edict about not harrasing the officials and Assou got the spurs players away from the officials as soon as Clatterbrain told them to go awaybut then Ferdinand decides as he is the England captain and that this is his home ground this does not apply to him and does go in and put in his two pence worth and at no time did the officials tell him to go away.
Now the linesman could simply inform the ref of something he had not been able to see from his view point and the referee could easily have disallowed the goal and the fuss would have all been over. Instead out of the jaws of commonsense one of our leading officials snatches a total load of bollocks and should in my view be reprimanded. Normally i would blame the law makers themselves for not allowing officials to use commonsense but on this occasion i just really wonder are any of the officials today up to the job?
Clattenburg didn’t see the handball you are correct, but I think he would of expected the linesman to flag for it if he did see it (as he should of done). I haven’t seen a replay that shows the linesman as Nani kicked the ball in but if you are correct I think he has flagged too late. Had he flagged at the time of the handball, Clattenburg would of either given a free kick or clearly signalled advantage, no one has really covered themselves in glory and I would be very interested to have been a fly on the wall when Clattenburg had his post match review with his assessor.
The point about Ferdinand is a good one and one I agree with, though I don’t think he was allowed to stay because he was a home player or England captain. I would hope the FA had a word with him but I doubt they have. I’m sure with hindsight Clattenburg would have sent him away though he probably didn’t affect the decision, the fans would of had more of an effect in my opinion.
On your final point, I believe that 90% of the time the Premiership referees are some of the best in the world. Everyone has their bad days and I’m sure Clattenburg and the assistant would put that down as one of them. There are many leagues around the world who are envious of the English referees and many referees go around the world to deliver training courses to other countries.
I blame the referee for not having been demonstrative and communicative enough. By making some kind of signal to Gomes at the appropriate time, things would have been clearer and that messy situation would have been avoided. It is true that if we go by the rule, the goal is valid but sometimes ‘common sense’ should prevail over the rule. The manner in which the goal was scored was ridiculous and unsportsmanlike in which case the referee should have used his judgment in disallowing it.
Yeah Clattenburg definitely should have made a clearer signal rather than shrugging his shoulders, though I’m not sure the law allows for common sense in this kind of situation. Saying that the lawmakers probably didn’t consider a situation like this!
As a Chelsea fan, I really sympathise with Utd over this kind of thing. Firstly, as somebody watching the game as a nuetral (I dislike both of these times, probably dislike Utd more) I thought that the initial incident justified a penalty. So on that basis, what came after could be seen as karma.
Anyway, no penalty given so Nani could have been ruled to have commited a handball but the ref either a) didn’t see it, or b) saw it and gave advantage / play on for the sake of a free flowing game. Now from here, everybody seems to be saying ‘well there was no advantage gained. Well I argue otherwise.
As a goalkeeper myself, instead of a deadball, 2 yards from the by line I’d rather have the ball in my hands with an opportunity to release the ball quickly and catch them on the counter attack. Utd had several players in forward positions, so with Spurs being a good counter attacking team with pace down the wings, I’d say that Gomes having the ball in his hands was a clear advantage.
Finally the myth of big teams getting more decisions there way. People tend to quote figures on penalties for and against, but the major impacting factor hear is this… by the laws of average, attacking teams will get more penalties, dodgy goals allowed, dodgy free kicks in advanced positions etc etc. Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal each attack more than other teams and therefore if you spend 70% of the time in posession of the ball, and have 20 shots compared to 5 shots throughout the game, you are by the law of averages going to get more of these decisions.
Yes I watch Chelsea through blue tinted glasses, but when I watch the other big teams I do see many decisions go against them which nobody makes a fuss over. The reason being? Generally if you’ve won a game (which happens more often for the better teams) you don’t make a big deal over the things that go against you.
*claps*
Most sensible thing I’ve seen written on this subject anywhere so far. Top marks Steve.
The way people are climbing on it as some huge injustice you’d have thought at the very least it had a direct, tangible impact on the outcome of the match.
But because the big clubs are headline news their incidents are more heavily scrutinised, making people think they get all the decisions.
Yep, completely agree with this
Absolutely! It’s a long time since the David Beckham / Roy Keane era when Man Utd used to get more decisions going our way. The last ten years have seen such ludicrous media coverage of any refereeing mistake in our favour that officials are terrified of giving us penalties or key decisions if they’re not 100% sure (or even sometimes if they are)!
We’ve had so many good penalty shouts turned down this year (eg. Delap on Evra & Huth handball just from Stoke game) and then we get a certain one like Kaboul’s rugby tackle on Nani at the weekend turned down also. To be fair, it seems like Chelsea have also suffered a bit from similar though lesser media scrutiny and have had a few more decisions go against them this year (not that it’s mattered in their case so far).
It’s Arsenal who’ve really been getting away with it this year (as usual) – the number of penalties / free-kicks given to out-and-out dives by Nasri and Chamakh especially is ridiculous. And if you actually watch a Man Utd game, you’ll see many more instances of the referees playing on after actual fouls on Nani, than us getting fk’s for his going down too easily. (Ratio of the order of 5:1)!
I agree with you Andy and thanks for your comment. There was a period last season when the things you mention, coupled with Ferguson’s perhaps ill-advised comments about a ref (completely forgotten which one now!) after the 2-2 game with Sunderland, brought about a 2-3 month period where referees genuinely seemed to go against Ferguson (and therefore United) almost to make a point.
I remember several decisions going against them in that period and it had a real affect on their title prospects, considering how close the margin was at the end of the season. The two Chelsea v United games for example were both decided by highly contentious goals.
In a sense Ferguson only had himself to blame for bringing about a backlash from the referees union for some pretty harsh comments, but still – what I’m getting at is that United get just as many decisions against them as they do in their favour despite what the media like to portray.
Nani should have had a penalty for the foul by Kaboul on Saturday, but had it not been given you wouldn’t have so much as seen a replay on Match of the Day let alone sit through endless phone-ins and talk shows concentrating on it.