I figured you meant that but thought I'd check anyway.
I'd maybe be moaning about it, but only because he would have wrongly reversed a decision. If he'd disallowed it or stopped Nani from the start I'd have not had an issue with it.
Like I say, the ref was entitled to disallow or allow it. Once he'd made that decision he was right to stick by it.
But the ref waits a few seconds to see if advantage has been gained- clearly there is no advantage in conceeding a goal. Sorry ref error and a bad one- trainspotters are only ones who can support him going by letter of law- well you have to be a trainspotter to be a ref -that's half their problem. Common sense has no paert in what they do. lol
[cite]Posted By: lordromford[/cite]If he'd disallowed it or stopped Nani from the start I'd have not had an issue with it.
Like I say, the ref was entitled to disallow or allow it. Once he'd made that decision he was right to stick by it.
But I thought you said he was unsighted and so missed the handball
[cite]Posted By: lordromford[/cite]Except anyone who was unsighted. Like the referee in this case.
Yeah, I've also acknowledged that maybe he did see it. If you're going to pick holes, at least read all the posts.
It doesn't change anything anyway. No matter how you twist and turn, the ref is still right and Gomes is still to blame.
If he didn't see the handball, then presumably the linesman passing that information on to him changes the decision to award the goal. Similar to if he didn't see a player was offside or fouling his man before putting it in.
If he did see the handball, then he should've at the very least signaled for advantage, which he didn't do.
Gomez is a numpty, yes. But no matter which way you look at it, Clattenburg doesn't come out much better.
I still think that this wouldn't be in the slightest bit controversial if Clattenburg disallowed the goal.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]
If he did see the handball, then he should've at the very least signaled for advantage, which he didn't do.
Agreed, but this is one of the reasons why I'm not convinced he did see it, despite what he's allegedly said. Also, that's not a huge deal. You should still be able to expect players to play to the whistle.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]
I still think that this wouldn't be in the slightest bit controversial if Clattenburg disallowed the goal.
Maybe, but that's not the point. Once he'd made his initial judgement, changing his mind would've been wrong - and that would have been controversial.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]
If he didn't see the handball, then presumably the linesman passing that information on to him changes the decision to award the goal. Similar to if he didn't see a player was offside or fouling his man before putting it in.
No. Not the same. The unusual aspect of this situation was that it saw Spurs in possession of the ball after the handball. Playing on wasn't a 'wrong' decision because of this and therefore he couldn't overturn it even if he wanted to.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]
Gomez is a numpty.
Agreed.
Right that's it. I'm bored of this topic now, I don't even care that much. Nice discussion though IA. Cheers.
Now the World Series has finished, I'm going to bed. :-)
My Dad who was a Referee, when giving advantage, always yelled ' play on ' which he said was appreciated by the players. There are however so many foreigners over here grabbing the big wages that there are bound to be some who don't speak our language.
[cite]Posted By: Granpa[/cite]My Dad who was a Referee, when giving advantage, always yelled ' play on ' which he said was appreciated by the players. There are however so many foreigners over here grabbing the big wages that there are bound to be some who don't speak our language.
Also with 70000 punters noisily munching prawn sannies, it's a bit different to reffing at lower levels. As you might not clearly hear what someone is shouting 20 yards away. That's why there's hand signals.
Irrespective of Gomez's ability or lack of it, haven't you seen the ref play advantage and when none is gained bring play back for the free kick. The ref doesn't blow his whistle at the time of the incident, just makes a judgement. It is to help the game flow, not cause controversy. But unfortunately the pedantic personalities of many refs causes problems. As somebody has already asked, would there be any controversy if the ref had disallowed it? Of course not. What is wrong with applying common sense FFS. Can somebody please explain to me what advantage Spurs gained by conceeding a goal?
Yes and what happens when no advantage is gained.......... the ref reverts to the free kick. The ball was in the net only seconds after the ref waving play on so he can't claim too much time had elapsed. I think Redknapp is right when he says that Clatternberg knows that he knows, that he knows that he made an error lol -that was a funny line btw.
If you are going to charge Redknapp for making an understandable and honest statement, directly after the match, then you should at least charge Clatternberg for being a useless homer. I know What I think is the most serious.
I really think the fact that this happened to Spurs has skewed a lot of folk's opinion on this. If we were the victim of this goal, there would be universal condemnation!
Comments
If lino told ref it's handball, and ref disallowed the goal, giving Spurs a free kick, would you be on here complaining?
I'd maybe be moaning about it, but only because he would have wrongly reversed a decision. If he'd disallowed it or stopped Nani from the start I'd have not had an issue with it.
Like I say, the ref was entitled to disallow or allow it. Once he'd made that decision he was right to stick by it.
But I thought you said he was unsighted and so missed the handball
It doesn't change anything anyway. No matter how you twist and turn, the ref is still right and Gomes is still to blame.
If he didn't see the handball, then presumably the linesman passing that information on to him changes the decision to award the goal. Similar to if he didn't see a player was offside or fouling his man before putting it in.
If he did see the handball, then he should've at the very least signaled for advantage, which he didn't do.
Gomez is a numpty, yes. But no matter which way you look at it, Clattenburg doesn't come out much better.
I still think that this wouldn't be in the slightest bit controversial if Clattenburg disallowed the goal.
Maybe, but that's not the point. Once he'd made his initial judgement, changing his mind would've been wrong - and that would have been controversial.
No. Not the same. The unusual aspect of this situation was that it saw Spurs in possession of the ball after the handball. Playing on wasn't a 'wrong' decision because of this and therefore he couldn't overturn it even if he wanted to.
Agreed.
Right that's it. I'm bored of this topic now, I don't even care that much. Nice discussion though IA. Cheers.
Now the World Series has finished, I'm going to bed. :-)
Clatty is a comedy genius.
IMO it's mostly gomez' fault for not doing so and partly Nani's fault for being so unsporting.
Still, it's absolutely hillarious and has been great ammo to piss off my yid mates with.
If you are going to charge Redknapp for making an understandable and honest statement, directly after the match, then you should at least charge Clatternberg for being a useless homer. I know What I think is the most serious.
I can't see how it is common sense for the ref to blow up for a foul when the keeper had the ball in his hands.
Spurs did have an advantage, their keeper could have taken it quickly and maybe caught man u out of position.
exactly what I thought