Nani's goal against Tottenham

[+MrCaleyjag]

Here's one that is sure to cause a few arguments in the pub and probably already has done.

Nani's goal against Tottenham, should it have stood or not? Does it highlight the need for referee's to come out and explain decisions?

For me the only way I can see that Mark Clattenberg gave the goal was because the ball was still active and he never gave a free-kick, the linesman obviously thought he had by flagging or maybe he flagged for handball by Nani when he fell over. All very strange in my opinion but for me it shouldn't have stood because Tottenham should have had a free-kick for the handball when Nani fell over.

It's good to see that refereeing decisions like this are happening elsewhere and deflecting the attention away from recent events in Scottish games.

[Johnboy]

The moral of that one is that you should always play to the whistle....

Perfectly legitimate goal.... whether the ref should have blown for a free kick or not, the fact of the matter is that he didn't.

[dan_ict]

Either did Nani when he assumed he had a penalty and cleary handled the ball

[starchief]

I agree with Johnboy. Scotland shouldn't have been put out of the World Cup (or was it the Euros) as it was never a free-kick against Hutton. But decisions sometimes go against you. Play to the whistle

[SMEE]

The refs asst bottled it. When Gomez went over to jarre him...refs asst was clearly seen acknowledging that it was a free kick to Spurs....yet...he didnt let the ref know what he had seen.

Antoher thing that annoyed me was that the spurs players were told in no uncertain terms to go away from the ref...yet Ferdinand was allowed to join the ref and his asst for the discussion. One rule for some......

[caley100]

The ass.ref looked like he confirmed that he handled the ball, the ref after Gomez collected the ball clearly waved play on, Gomez dithered, the ref then holds out his arms obviously saying whats the problem, Nani see's the chance and bingo.

Gomez is at fault.. as above play the whistle.

[+MrCaleyjag]

I totally agree with everyone about playing the whistle and that was my reaction when I seen it, or rather seen the reply of it because ESPN missed it. In the context of how the game went and no freekick being given it is a legitimate goal.

My problem is the lineman didn't have the guts to stand up and be counted and insist that it was a freekick for the handball by Nani which should have been what happened. The other thing was the ref telling the Tottenham players to retreat but then lets Rio Ferdinand stand there giving his opinions throughout the whole time they discussed it.

Thanks god it didn't happen to Celtic cause the world would have come to an end!!!

[Doofer]

I would have preferred spurs to win that game as always support the underdoor (even if only very slightly) but the goal SHOULD have stood. Although nani dived in the area and then handled the ball which should have should have been a freekick on two counts but the ref didnt not blow his whistle and award a free kick. so, when gomez put the ball down, nani has every right to score. In my book, bad refereeing but great awareness from nani.

[Johnboy]

Was it bad refereeing?

Often you'll see a ref wave play on, after an infringement for, say, offside has taken place. If the keeper already has possession of the ball, play can be speeded up, by dispensing with the ritual of a free kick.

If Gomez really did believe it was a free kick, he had rolled the ball out to a spot well away from where Nani handled the ball.

If the ref was guilty of anything it might be that he didn't make it clear he was waving play on..... maybe he shouted "play on" to the players in that area of the pitch.

Who knows?

[CaleyD]

I never understood why refs should have to wave play on...surely the lack of whistle is enough to let players know play hasn't stopped!!!

[Johnboy]

A ref might wave play on where an assistant ref had flagged for an infringement.

Reminds me, a few years ago listening to commentary on Radio Clyde - Derick Johnstone, I think it was, informed listeners during a game that the linesman had his whistle up for offside!

[CaleyD]

I know why they do it, I just don't see the need.

It should be drilled into players that they only react to the whistle, so much so that it should be a sub-concious process that they continue until they hear it.

Assistant referees are there to do just that and there's absolutely no need whatsoever for a player to pay them any attention during a match. How many times do you see a defender being caught out because he looks over to see if a flag has been raised for offside and stops, only for the ref not to give it and a striker is left clear through....or they stop chasing a ball because they think it has gone out of play, only for the opposition to nip in and steal it.

A flag or a wave of the hands doesn't stop a game, only the whistle does.....it's not a hard concept to understand.

[caley100]

Very true, feck knows why players hesitate! and.. ass.refs can only advise the ref, not make him change his mind on situations.

[starchief]

It's to note an infringement has been made. Not only does it stop players complaining to the ref that it was a foul, the ref can also book a player for multiple fouls, even if he hasn't stopped the play.