Anyone that blamed Gomes for the Goal

[DHMadboy]

would you have been happy then if Kaboul had been picked up the ball instead of Gomes to take the free kick and Clattenberg had given a penalty?????

 

[Dannyspur]

Nani virtually picked up the ball and twattenberg didn't give us a free kick, so why do you think he would have given a penalty if Kaboul had picked up the ball?

 

[brett.spurs]

Because Nani plays for Utd, not Spurs :shrug:

 

[NEVILLEB]

would you have been happy then if Kaboul had been picked up the ball instead of Gomes to take the free kick and Clattenberg had given a penalty?????

What's your point? Confusing

 

[DHMadboy]

because everyone thought it was a freekick, so kaboul could have quite easily picked up the ball instead of gomes,
in which case cause clattenbergs defence was that he said he hadn't blown the whistle and allowed spurs to play advantage he would have had to give a penalty to man utd if kaboul had picked up the ball, or would he then have seen common sense, and listened to the linesmen to why it had happened????

 

[worcestersauce]

Those that blamed Gomes would counter that with the arguement that Kaboul didn't pick it up though did he and they may argue that that is the point!!!

I can't see why Clattenburg didn't just say that the advantage didn't ensue and so pull it back to the free kick that's what happens when ref's play the advantage upfield and it was his get out there, maybe he didn't want a get out though.

 

[PT]

It's not a "whatif" hypothesis though. The scenario played out to Spurs detriment nevertheless. Manchester United took advantage of a Spurs player anticipating a whistle which never came.

Gomes is squarely at fault for the conclusion to the comedy of errors from three parties - Nani playing the wronged party by getting the hump after going down and grabbing the ball - Clattenburg for not communicating clearly to both sides what the situation was - Gomes for assuming Spurs had been awarded a freekick and not getting official confirmation of such.

Gomes picked up the ball out of Nani's grasp. He could have held on to it and cleared it in the normal manner. But he dropped it ten foot away from where a freekick resulting from a handball had occurred then proceeded to back away from it and stood static as he wondered why Nani had become interested in the "dead ball".

Gomes is to blame for the conclusion to the comedy of errors.

 

[StartingPrice]

It's not a "whatif" hypothesis though. The scenario played out to Spurs detriment nevertheless. Manchester United took advantage of a Spurs player anticipating a whistle which never came.

Gomes is squarely at fault for the conclusion to the comedy of errors from three parties - Nani playing the wronged party by getting the hump after going down and grabbing the ball - Clattenburg for not communicating clearly to both sides what the situation was - Gomes for assuming Spurs had been awarded a freekick and not getting official confirmation of such.

Gomes picked up the ball out of Nani's grasp. He could have held on to it and cleared it in the normal manner. But he dropped it ten foot away from where a freekick resulting from a handball had occurred then proceeded to back away from it and stood static as he wondered why Nani had become interested in the "dead ball".

Gomes is to blame for the conclusion to the comedy of errors.

You are wrong, I have explained why on another thread.

 

[PT]

I'm not wrong SP. If you look through your rage against the Ref appointed to Manchester United's games, even if he was a factor in that he didn't make the game's status clear to both sides, Gomes assumed.

Gomes thought a freekick had been awarded; it hadn't. The conclusion was a direct consequence of his assumptions.

 

[Mr Pink]

Read Graham Polls interpretation on events:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eurelho-Gomes-Mark-Clattenburg-Nani-goal.html

 

[StartingPrice]

I'm not wrong SP. If you look through your rage against the Ref appointed to Manchester United's games, even if he was a factor in that he didn't make the game's status clear to both sides, Gomes assumed.

Gomes thought a freekick had been awarded; it hadn't. The conclusion was a direct consequence of his assumptions.

But that answers nothing. I agree, Gomes shout have played to the whistle.

But you have to actually analyse the whole situation, as I have done above and ask for further explanation. Why didn't he book Nani for a mandatory yellow-card offence and give a free-kick? Why? Saying Gomes should have assumed he had done just doesn't answer that! Why did he listen to the lino telling him that nani had deliberately handled the ball, and then give the goal anyway? Presumably because he had already seen the inciden, and WAS allowing advantage...in which case he should emphatically not have allowed the goal without any nod from the lino, and should have retrospectively booked Nani.

All of this should have happened whether either preenting Gomes from being in a position to make that false assumption, or after it had been made...so going back to that false assmption is a fallacy.

I suspect, if the truth is known, in my calmer moments, thathe thought Gomes HAD kicked the ball, but hadn't seen clearly one way or another. taht would explain why he ignored the lino telling him about the hand-ball, but even so, he shouldn't have given the goal...and that is posterior to Gomes's assumption.

Also, it doesn't answer why Nani committed two or three yellow card offences and received zero yello cards, why Paul Scholes was allowed to jostle him ala di Canio, and not be penalised harshly,and why Ferdinand was allowed to stand shouting at him and the lino (particularly the lino) all of the time they were consulting.

Please, address these issues.

 

[bubble07]

Read Graham Polls interpretation on events:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eurelho-Gomes-Mark-Clattenburg-Nani-goal.html

was just about to post this. Although he is a cock I have to say that I agreed with everything he wrote

 

[Zimmy]

I blame Clattenburg. But I honestly can't imagine someone like Reina or VDS getting caught up in such a epic f*ck up.

To say the least Gomes acted naively.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

What I don't understand is firstly why Nani wasn't booked for diving so blatantly (not to mention his attempt to make it look as if Gomes had clouted him). As I said in ratings, I don't think Gomes covered himself in glory, but it was really easy to understand how it happened, Nani doesn't just touch the ball briefly, he rolls it around. I don't think I have ever seen a referee play an "advantage" after such a blatant hand ball incident. But then Gomes actually looks at Clusterfuckenberg for guidance and this the second bit where he acts in a confusing way and doesn't make it clear to Gomes what the situation is.

Nani is turning into a very dislikable ****. Clusterfuckenberg has always been one.

 

[Davo99]

Read Graham Polls interpretation on events:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...eurelho-Gomes-Mark-Clattenburg-Nani-goal.html

You'd think someone who takes the laws of the game this seriously would have sent that fella off after his second yellow, wouldn't you?

The fact is he's sticking up for a ref who's in the limelight for making a terrible decision, just because he's been there too. Nani handled it and we should have been given a free-kick, but Clattenburg didn't give it. His mistake, not ours.

 

[pjspur1961]

The blame is at the feet of Gomes for this, "play to the whistle" is the first thing you learn!!

But Clattenberg and his Lino had and massive part to play in the whole incident

a couple of points to look at here;

• Why didn't the lino flag for the hand ball?

And

• If Clattenberg had seen the handball and decided to give the advantage, why didn't he give the advantage signal?
• and if he didn't see it, then his capabilities as a ref have to come into question. You cannot miss something so blatant.

Clattenberg didn't have control of the entire incident, and lost concentration at the point he didn't give the penalty, expecting a barrarge of abuse from the united players.

 

[StartingPrice]

What I don't understand is firstly why Nani wasn't booked for diving so blatantly (not to mention his attempt to make it look as if Gomes had clouted him). As I said in ratings, I don't think Gomes covered himself in glory, but it was really easy to understand how it happened, Nani doesn't just touch the ball briefly, he rolls it around. I don't think I have ever seen a referee play an "advantage" after such a blatant hand ball incident. But then Gomes actually looks at Clusterfuckenberg for guidance and this the second bit where he acts in a confusing way and doesn't make it clear to Gomes what the situation is.

Nani is turning into a very dislikable ****. Clusterfuckenberg has always been one.

Expertly put, BC:up:

The blame is at the feet of Gomes for this, "play to the whistle" is the first thing you learn!!

But Clattenberg and his Lino had and massive part to play in the whole incident

a couple of points to look at here;

• Why didn't the lino flag for the hand ball?

And

• If Clattenberg had seen the handball and decided to give the advantage, why didn't he give the advantage signal?
• and if he didn't see it, then his capabilities as a ref have to come into question. You cannot miss something so blatant.

Clattenberg didn't have control of the entire incident, and lost concentration at the point he didn't give the penalty, expecting a barrarge of abuse from the united players.

I think that was covered by the man-handling he got off of Paul Scholes. That should have been a straight red and a lengthy ban, in itself, and also morethn likely shook Clatty up in more than just the physical sense - but why, then, didn't he act:shrug::bang:

According to this article, here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...h-his-decision-to-play-advantage-2121878.html

Clatty is pulling the "I played the advantage" card...in which case isn't it standard procedure to take the play back if clearly no advantage accrues, AND to issue retrospectively any cards due - remembering of course that Nani had committed a mandatory yellow card offence in handling the ball, not to mention his dive or the fact that other players in similar situations have been booked for scoring goals like that.
So by my understanding, Clatty should have brought the play back and yellow or red carded Nani (and Paul Scholes).

Instead of facing 10 or even 9 men with 10 minutes to go, with two fresh strikers, the game was effectively over thanks to his incompetence.

 

[jurgen]

This entirely shaky premise of the "advantage" being bandied about, I don't understand. But even then as we see Clattenburg made very little effort to indicate to our players what his intentions were. An honest question, is the player or the referee supposed to dictate whether one has to take the advantage, where precisely does the advantage exist for us in that situation? This is a far worse version of incidents such as Henry's quick free kick where the referee summarily fails to communicate his decision to BOTH teams, effectively allowing one an artificial advantage through manipulation. Of course he can then argue all sets of players should know the full extent of the rules but its disingenuous at (very) best.

Clearly the impressionable referee didn't feel Nani warranted a booking for rolling around with the ball, just as he didnt when he tripped himself up looking for a penalty - therefore in his eyes he wouldn't have to call back to administer a caution. That's nothing to do with Gomes its just another poor moral judgement from a questionable character. Playing to the whistle is a convenient way of shifting the blame away from absolutely cretinous decision making, and transmission of said decision to players as is the referee's duty. Gomes should have launched it, but had the ref done his job properly and communicated his decisions then he would have had no doubt. I think we also need to put this isolated decision when we were 1-0 down anyway in the context of his general performance, which was inconsistent at best, out of control at worst, but always incompetent.

 

[MattyP]

This entirely shaky premise of the "advantage" being bandied about, I don't understand. But even then as we see Clattenburg made very little effort to indicate to our players what his intentions were. An honest question, is the player or the referee supposed to dictate whether one has to take the advantage, where precisely does the advantage exist for us in that situation? This is a far worse version of incidents such as Henry's quick free kick where the referee summarily fails to communicate his decision to BOTH teams, effectively allowing one an artificial advantage through manipulation. Of course he can then argue all sets of players should know the full extent of the rules but its disingenuous at (very) best.

Clearly the impressionable referee didn't feel Nani warranted a booking for rolling around with the ball, just as he didnt when he tripped himself up looking for a penalty - therefore in his eyes he wouldn't have to call back to administer a caution. That's nothing to do with Gomes its just another poor moral judgement from a questionable character. Playing to the whistle is a convenient way of shifting the blame away from absolutely cretinous decision making, and transmission of said decision to players as is the referee's duty. Gomes should have launched it, but had the ref done his job properly and communicated his decisions then he would have had no doubt. I think we also need to put this isolated decision when we were 1-0 down anyway in the context of his general performance, which was inconsistent at best, out of control at worst, but always incompetent.

I suppose the advantage is that Gomes had the ball in his hands, could have ran to the edge of the penalty area and kicked it, instead of being forced to have a free kick inside the six yard area.

Gomes has to take some of the blame for what happened as without his actions none of this would have happened, but equally Twattenburg should have handled the situation considerably better. It's difficult to think how he could have handled it any worse.

Booking Modric, our captain, for complaining was the icing on the incompetence cake.

 

[StanSpur]

Fact is the whistle didn't go therefore Gomes should not have rolled the ball out when there were 2 Utd players closer to him than any other Spurs player. Just because it should have been a freekick (or penalty in actual fact) doesn't mean that it was. A freekick is only awarded by the ref and he didn't give one.

· Gomes is to blame for not playing to the whistle.
· The ref is to blame for not awarding a freekick.
· Spurs are to blame for never looking like they would score a goal and the Nani goal not actually making a difference to the result.