Baz looks at certain events from the weekend.
There were a number of incidents from the weekends matches which I felt were worth discussion:
Nani’s goal
This was bizarre. Most of us will have a view on this but I thought Kevin Keegan got it about right when he said that technically the decision was correct but in terms of justice it was not.
My take on this is that it is the interpretation of the advantage law that needs scrutinizing and clarifying.
Football could take a lesson from rugby union here. The problem very often is that advantage is allowed and in short order the ball is lost and none therefore occurs. In rugby the referee goes back to the original offence even though that offence may have occurred over a minute before. It appears in football that advantage has to be realised in more immediate terms and teams miss out on a free kick in an advantageous position that they may have preferred.
In this case Nani is clipped but he goes down late. Mark Clattenburg rules that there is no penalty. Nani falls and clearly places his hand on top of the ball in the belief, no doubt, that a penalty award is forthcoming. The referee waves play on as Gomez, the Spurs keeper has the ball in his custody whilst Nani has a hissy fit on the ground that would do most two year-olds proud.
Now, Gomez places the ball several yards in front of the hand ball incident and steps back to take a ‘free-kick’ which of course has not been awarded. The referee stands half way to the centre line arms apart in a gesture that says, ‘are you going to kick it some time today or not?’ Nani has now got up, runs to the ball and is looking to the referee for confirmation that he can play on with his team mates yelling at him to put it in the net.
Confusion all round as Nani finally risks a booking if he’s wrong by scoring past the hapless Gomez. With a look of exasperation Mr Clattenburg gives the goal; correctly so!
Now for the grey area of the law; when is advantage over? Clearly, there is no advantage to Spurs whatsoever in the events described as the referee had originally intended and in the interests of keeping the game free flowing.
Kevin Keegan is absolutely right in his contention that the goal was technically correctly awarded but in terms of justice it is clearly wrong. The referee should have the discretion to award the original free kick to Spurs as no advantage has accrued despite the time elapsed just like the case in rugby.
Blues fans will recall that Bolton got away with a free kick instead of a penalty award against them when Jaaskailainen whacked Johnson round the face because of the ‘advantage’ law. Once again in rugby union, a serious case of violent conduct like that would lead to the reverse of the original offence. Even penalty kicks are reversed if a referee or his assistants spot foul play. A similar law in football would solve these sorts of controversies or not depending on the referee and his personal interpretation! It would just give us different things to moan about I suppose.
Whilst it irks me to agree with anything Mark Lawrenson says, his point that it would help if referees came out an hour or so after the game and explained their thinking following controversial decisions is a valid one and at least worthy of debate.
Sunday’s games
The Bolton-Liverpool game raised a number of points; the game was refereed by our old friend, Mr Martin Atkinson who for various reasons is rapidly becoming my least favourite official.
Liverpool eventually won the match with a sublime piece of skill by Torres to set the winning goal up for Maxi. However, the same referee that has given two penalties against Birmingham this year at Villa and at Arsenal for nothing challenges chooses to ignore a clear hand ball offence in the area against Carragher and later a good old fashioned barge in the back against Kevin Davies by Kyrgiakos before Liverpool scored!
Consistent though; you have to give Mr Atkinson credit for that. However, the advantage law came up in this match also. Following a foul the ball broke clear to Liverpool down their left flank and the player was in the clear with space to run into. Mr Atkinson blew for the free kick to the Reds’ annoyance.
Andy Gray pointed out that the referee was intimating to the Liverpool players that despite the free winger, they had nobody in the box. That was true but there were at least two players just outside it who would undoubtedly have got interested had the wide player been allowed to run on.
Again if the advantage had been allowed to play out for longer than is the current custom then Mr Atkinson could still go back to the original free kick if no clear advantage accrues.
Moving on to the Tyne-Wear derby where in total contrast the excellent Phil Dowd officiated. I like the way he referees as he appears to communicate with the players, is decisive, takes no nonsense from any of them and importantly tends to get the big calls right. He sent off Sunderland’s Bramble for a professional foul on Carroll but only booked John Mensah for a similar incident later.
Some pundits were suggesting that Bramble was unlucky to get his marching orders as there were other defenders coming across. The fact is no one was getting anywhere near Carroll once he was past Bramble and it was a clear goal scoring opportunity. It is a pity that the referee in the Birmingham-Blackpool game didn’t see Fahey’s opportunity in the same light!
The difference with Mensah is that Onuoha his defensive partner was a matter of five yards away and could easily have intercepted Carroll on this occasion. Phil Dowd uses Law 19 a lot; common sense and it is great to see.
As for our game against Villa, I have reported on this separately. It would seem that we need someone to whack one of our players with a baseball bat or for an opposition player to catch the ball in the box for us to get a penalty this season.
Mind you if it was Mr Clattenburg refereeing he might just wave play on! 😀
KRO SOTV
I agree with you Baz that advanage should be allowed for a much longer period, as it does in rugby, and that play should be brought back for the original offence if advanage does not accrue.
There are a few things that could be taken from rugby. For instance, let’s have the ref miked so that his comments can be heard on TV.That would sort out the men from the boys! The FA wouldn’t counenance this, partly to protect inept refs, but also because of the swearing that would be picked up on the ref’s mike! A similarly strict attiude to swearing as exists in rugby would sort this out, bu I fear that this would be a culture shock too far for your average player, 28% of whose vocabulary exists of swear words (according to research which I just made up!).
Gomes was at fault for the Nani goal. He should have just held on to the ball and when he saw Nani standing over the ball he should have moved to pick it up.
Serves him right.
Thanks for that Tony. 28% eh? I thought it was nearer 85% in the case of most professional footballers and that is when they are giving a best man’s speech at a team mates wedding! 😀
You’re right Aylesbury mate; it’s called playing to the whistle.
The problem with the Nani incident, for me, was the was Clattenburg waved for advantage. The signal should be arms straight out, and I don’t recall seeing him do that in the footage. Instead, he shrugs, which means absolutely nothing, and only serves to confuse Gomes and Nani. Yes, Gomes should have played to the whistle, and he was presumptuous to assume there would be a free kick, but Clattenburg’s communication was appalling.
In fairness to Mr Clattenburg Mike he had apparently shouted ‘play on’ rather than give the free kick. He may also call ‘advantage.’ The law states:
According to the principle of advantage, play should be allowed to continue when the team against which an offence has been committed will benefit from ongoing play. The referee indicates this by calling “advantage” and extending both arms in front of his body. This means that a foul will not be called if letting play continue is more advantageous to the fouled team than stopping play for a free kick. However, if the anticipated advantage does not ensue at that time, the referee may then stop play and penalize the original offence.
Further, Graham Poll says in an article in yesterday’s Daily Mail that advantage is deemed to be at an end if a player on the team who have been offended against can play the ball without hindrence. This was definitely the case with Gomez who must shoulder much of the balme for not clearing his lines when he had ample opportunity.