Football 2010-2011

[eFestivals]

As that shows, it was defo a shrug.

If anyone thinks that's the normal signal for "play on" they're mad!

[The Nal]

As that shows, it was defo a shrug.

If anyone thinks that's the normal signal for "play on" they're mad!

[Cardboard Box City]

No wonder you think all refs are crap, as you have the belief from the stands that you know the right calls more than them.

[eFestivals]

It’s a normal gesture for “Whats the problem? Why are you looking at me? There was no whistle”.

to which of course the right answer - as told the ref by the linesman - is that the problem was some foul play, a clear handball.

[eFestivals]

Don't talk utter shit. I'm blatantly defending, or at least playing devil's advocate about, the Clattenburg incident above.

Its funny how my belief about the Probert incident (who was the ref in the Stoke game as you're knowledge of serving top two tier referees is appalling/non-existent) is also shared by at least three ex-footballers (Chris Kamara, Roberto Martinez and Tim Flowers), one of whom is a serving Premier League manager.

I in no way believe all ref's are crap although I believe that some are very poor, some are average, and a few are very good). I'd happily name the ones who I personally think have been very good, but you wouldn't have a clue who they are (you didn't even know who Mark Clattenburg was just a page or two ago).

In the incident you're saying as bad tho, you've got it completely wrong. There WAS a push - as seen on TV. If Tuncay didn't foul he'd have never made contact with the ball to put it in the net.

The fact that ref used two hands to indicate the push is nowt to do with that.

Yes, it was one of those things that might not have been given on another occasion, but on another occasion the ref might not have had the view that he had on this occasion.

You're right that I don't take much notice of who a ref is. Perhaps you'd do better doing the same? Then your blinkers might not be telling you they've got it wrong when they haven't.

[Cardboard Box City]

[Cardboard Box City]

Then your blinkers might not be telling you they've got it wrong when they haven't.

[eFestivals]

He's not playing advantage.

If that's the case then the ref got it 100% wrong, and all of the justifications from fergie and Utd fans are misplaced.

[Cardboard Box City]

If that's the case then the ref got it 100% wrong

[ralph250]

It's not the general signal for "advantage" no, but then that would only be applicable if Clattenburg did deem an offense committed (ie. he saw the handball, or if he deemed Nani to have dived).

As CBC says though, if he hasn't seen or deemed either, and the linesmen definitely didn't signal prior to the goal (or until Gomes approached him if truth be told), then as the commentary's saying, it's as if he's just saying "what are you waiting for?".

Gomes has awarded himself the freekick prior to any signal at all from Clattenburg. It's only after he's placed it on the floor that Clattenburg raises his arms like that.

edit: for the record, Nani does dive once Kaboul's released, but Kaboul does tug prior twice.

[eFestivals]

So obviously Kamara, Martinez and Flowers were all blinkered in their opinion being the same as mine?

Dunno. Are the MotD pundits blinkered for the opposite?

[eFestivals]

Gomes has awarded himself the freekick prior to any signal at all from Clattenburg. It's only after he's placed it on the floor that Clattenburg raises his arms like that.

Yet that "awarded himself the freekick" is a very long way from anything wrong or unreasonable, given the circumstances of the offence - it's the sort of thing that happens in nearly every game.

It was such a clear handball that if the ref didn't see he it was about the only one in the ground who didn't, and it was such a clear handball that the linesman quite possibly thought he had no need to bring it to the ref's attention.

[Cardboard Box City]

Dunno. Are the MotD pundits blinkered for the opposite?

[The Nal]

Yet that "awarded himself the freekick" is a very long way from anything wrong or unreasonable, given the circumstances of the offence - it's the sort of thing that happens in nearly every game.

It was such a clear handball that if the ref didn't see he it was about the only one in the ground who didn't, and it was such a clear handball that the linesman quite possibly thought he had no need to bring it to the ref's attention.

[eFestivals]

MOTD is shite in the main, what did they say on the issue? (Someone apart from Neil)

Much as I've said - that it was perhaps a weakish thing to give as a foul, but that it was a foul.

[ralph250]

Yet that "awarded himself the freekick" is a very long way from anything wrong or unreasonable, given the circumstances of the offence - it's the sort of thing that happens in nearly every game.

Edited November 1, 2010 by ralph250

[eFestivals]

It can be incorrect in the eyes of the ref. You run the risk of the ref disagreeeing with you awarding yourself that freekick. The refs word is final at the end of the day. Is Nani allowed to award himself the penalty considering there's two tugs on him as above? letter of the law he could feel he should've had that, circumstances of the offence; denying a goalscoring opp, already on a yellow etc etc.

Nani *DID* try to award himself the penalty - that's precisely what him grabbing the ball was about. ... It was deliberate handball, and he should have got at least a yellow.

But I agree, it's wrong in the eyes of the ref. It's an argument a player can't win if the ref disagrees.

If the rules were applied as strictly as you're suggesting here, then by that point in the game Nani would have long before had a red for continual diving so the incident would never have happened, and half or more of both teams would have already left the field.

Clear handball yeah, but no guarantees the ref can see it from his position.

agreed.

Would be very poor from the linesmen just to assume.

again, agreed.

Tho I'd have thought it's a fair assumption that he was thinking he didn't have to flag for it (cos the ref had seen it), given how the play stopped.

Not sure if you were watching it live (I was), but the broadcast missed the goal - they'd gone to a replay of Nani's oscar act, having assumed that play had stopped too.

So it appears that everyone barr the ref got it right. If the ref didn't see the handball then he should have awarded it after the 'goal' had been 'scored', after talking to the linesman. If the ref did see the handball then he should have disallowed the 'goal' and called play back to the free kick he'd initially played advantage with.

So while Gomes was a numptie, I really can't see how anyone can justify the goal as good - outside of a very biased interpretation of the rules.

Edited November 1, 2010 by eFestivals

[worm]

Twats!

Had to say it somewhere.

[Steve P]

Wilshere has signed his new deal. Knew he would, but good to see anyway.

[funkymp]

Redknapp has said he wont speak to the press if the FA charge him, hows he going to tap players up publically if this happens

Have a feeling spurs might get a result against Inter tonight, I hope they get hammered just because I dont think I could hack hearing spurs fans gloat about it for the next god knows how many months.

Don't think we'll have any probs against Spartak tomorrow, wouldn't mind seeing Mceachran get at least 45 minutes.

[jump]

I like Benitez's rants, now he's saying he was like a "priest on top of a mountain of sugar" during his spell at Liverpool.

[The Nal]

Redknapp has said he wont speak to the press if the FA charge him, hows he going to tap players up publically if this happens

Edited November 2, 2010 by The Nal

[Cardboard Box City]

I like Benitez's rants, now he's saying he was like a "priest on top of a mountain of sugar" during his spell at Liverpool.

[llcoolphil]

I really can't see how anyone can justify the goal as good - outside of a very biased interpretation of the rules.

[llcoolphil]

Yet that "awarded himself the freekick" is a very long way from anything wrong or unreasonable,