Making their point: but Tottenham's appeals were in
vain
Like everyone else I couldn't believe
my eyes as events unfolded at Old Trafford. It was one of the most
bizarre and divisive goals in Premier League history.
My analysis is that Mark Clattenburg
was right by the letter of the law, but his decision lacked
credibility - and left a scar on this match.
Due to the bizarre run of events that followed, Nani's
legitimate penalty claim was overlooked by many, including
Tottenham boss Harry Redknapp.
Nani appeared to be pushed from behind as he raced past Younes
Kaboul. He went to ground very easily as most players do, but if an
attacker does not go down then he will never get the decision.
Going down: Nani is challenged in the box by Tottenham
defender Kaboul
Clattenburg saw this incident clearly and instantly gave a
'negative' signal, placing his arms behind his back - he saw it but
didn't think it was an offence.
His decision was a good one as there was so little contact. It
would have been a soft penalty but technically it wouldn't have
been wrong.
Next came the moment that Spurs claim should have resulted in a
free-kick.
Players who feel they have been fouled often grab the ball to
force the referee to make a decision.
Rough justice: Nani handles the ball, but Clattenburg
calls for play to go on
Clattenburg could not see Nani deliberately handle the ball from
his position. Anyway, it became irrelevant when Heurelho Gomes
picked up the ball.
The referee would want the game to flow and playing on was the
best decision having not given the penalty. For the record,
handball is not a mandatory caution, whatever Alan Hansen says.
If Gomes felt he had a free-kick why walk 10 yards up the pitch
to take it? Why not play to the whistle? His actions were bizarre
and caused all of the problems.
At no point did Clattenburg blow the whistle or make any move to
do so, nor did he signal 'advantage'. He shouted 'Play on', but you
do that when there is no offence.
If Gomes had put the ball down at the point where Nani had
handled it and Nani had kicked it in from there then I am sure that
Clattenburg would not have allowed the goal.
Even if Clattenburg was playing advantage, it would have been
over as soon as Gomes had the ball in his hands.
Advantage is accrued once the player has control of the ball and
can play on unaffected.
Despite Nani's handball, a free-kick could not have been awarded
once Gomes picked up the ball.
As a top-flight referee, you have to contend with the 'win at
all costs' mentality which over-rides all else.
With players prepared to dive and feign injury, it is perhaps
too much to ask for sportsmanlike conduct. Nani knew that Gomes had
put the ball down for a free-kick which is why he hesitated. He did
nothing wrong in law.
This is the point at which the whole incident could have been
cleared up.
Assistant referee Simon Beck knew there was an unsatisfactory
and unnatural feel to the goal. He had seen the handball and so
gave Clattenburg an opportunity by calling him over.
Exchanging words: Clattenburg talks to his assistant
over Nani's goal
Clattenburg did well to keep the Tottenham players away but
mysteriously allowed Rio Ferdinand to approach. He might be England
captain but he is not the United captain and had no right to
approach - let alone stay at - the consultation.
The law allows a referee to change a decision providing he has
not restarted play. Clattenburg decided not to.
I fully understood the Spurs protests. Clattenburg did nothing
wrong in law but there was a lack of credibility in his decision. I
always tried to ensure that things felt right while trying to apply
the law correctly.
Unusually this situation had two alternative endings,
both right in law - let the goal stand or give a free-kick for the
missed handball after consultation with Beck. Personally I would
have done the latter. Of course that would have saved Gomes the
embarrassment that his stupidity perhaps deserved.
