“They all level themselves out in the end” was the moral of the story according to Rio Ferdinand in reference to Manchester United’s controversial second goal in their 2-0 win over Tottenham on Saturday.
This football cliché does ring true, it seems. In August, Stoke scored a perfectly legitimate goal against Spurs but the referee’s assistant ruled it out, insisting that the ball didn’t cross the line. Spurs won 2-1.
Only 2 weeks ago Tom Huddlestone’s goal against Fulham stood despite the linesman correctly flagging William Gallas offside. Spurs won 2-1.
Both goals proved the difference between a solitary point and the full three. However, if Nani’s disputed goal was ruled out, Spurs would still have come away from Old Trafford empty-handed.
The second goal was unfortunate for Spurs, but it confirmed my suspicion that a lot of commentators and pundits do not know the laws of the game. The referee did not signal for either a free-kick or a dead ball as Nani reacted and Heurelho Gomes dozed. It was a fair goal, however harsh it was in the context of the spirit of the game.
Nani’s goal was purely down to a Gomes cock-up. Clattenburg played advantage, but footballers always look to blame someone else. So do managers.
Harry Redknapp’s comments after the game are now under review by the FA as he described the goal as a “scandalous” and “farcical”, accusing Clattenburg of making a “total mess of it”.
Redknapp continued: “He [Clattenburg] made a real cock-up, there’s no doubt about that,” Redknapp said. “Whatever he says, he can come out and say what he wants, but he should have made the situation clearer. If he’s not given the free-kick he should be saying to the goalkeeper: ‘Pick it up, pick it up, pick it up.'”
Sir Alex Ferguson, the United manager, had a different version of events, blaming Gomes for “making a real mess of it” by not playing to the whistle.
Redknapp responded: “We all tell the players that from when they’re kids but he [Gomes] just thought it was a blatant handball. Everybody saw it and he [Clattenburg] has to give the handball decision.”
He claimed that Clattenburg had privately conceded he made a mistake. “I know he’s said to people he should have blown his whistle and given a free-kick,” he told the Sun of an incident that Redknapp described as “one of the worst refereeing decisions ever”.
So why did Mark Clattenburg not award a free-kick? Simple: the ball had run through to the goalkeeper so he let play continue on the basis that it would suit Gomes more to have it in his hands than as a dead-ball. The referee was, in short, playing the advantage rule.
The term ‘advantage’ is a becoming more of a key word in football. And the reason so many struggle to understand it is because it is in the opinion of the referee. Not the opinion of the fans, players and managers that counts.
Players always want to gain an advantage for their teams.
When Younes Kaboul pulled on Nani’s shirt in the box, he did it because he thought he could get away with it (which he did) and because he knew it would give his team a better chance of winning if he fouled Nani in a goalscoring position. No penalty was awarded so Tottenham fans would have been glad of his quick tug.
Spurs were at Old Trafford looking to end a long-standing barren-run there with them not claiming a win there since 1989. The North Londoners have scored only 10 goals in 20 league visits. And Spurs fans will be the first to tell you that when they have hinted at ending their hoodoo, fate has conspired against them.
They led 2-0 approaching the hour mark two seasons ago, only for Howard Webb to award a generous penalty and prick their conviction. United duly scored five in 22 minutes, with the referee having since conceded that his decision haunts him to this day. And in January 2005, Pedro Mendes’s 89th-minute shot famously crossed the line after Roy Carroll’s fumble, only for the officials not to notice. The game ended 0-0.
But to suggest Saturday’s events will join the list of the Spurs-Old Trafford conspiracy is laughable. Redknapp made a tactical error by fielding a five-man midfield at United which included five attack-minded players. Bale, Lennon, Jenas, Van der Vaart and Modric looked promising at moments in the game but failed to grab hold of the midfield battle. Spurs did change things around with Wilson Palacios coming on but it was too little, too late.
The underlining factor here is that footballers do whatever they think they can get away with to give their team a better chance of winning. And would the fans have it any other way?
In a heated debate with William Gallas after the game, Rio Ferdinand said: “If you had scored when the ball went out in the first half would you say ‘no goal, the ball was out’? No!
“It was handball by Nani but the ref didn’t blow so how can it be a free kick? If it’s a free kick, why did Gomes put the ball 10 yards away from incident?”
In a nutshell, what the England captain is saying is: play to the whistle.
There is one very obvious oversight in your one sided article……..Advantage – this means that the team must actually gain an “advantage”….if the situation conspires in the short period after the “advantage” is played, to not be an “advantage”, then play should be pulled back to the original incident and a free kick given.
If you can explain to me where spurs gained from the decision you saw something the rest of the world missed.