Question Number: 24257

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 10/31/2010

RE: Comp, Class III Under 15

John Arnold of Berkeley, CA US asks...

In this weekend's game between Man Utd and Spurs, do you think Mark Clattenburg could have handled the Nani incident better? As the old rule goes: 'play to the whistle', but could the goalie be forgiven for assuming that since Nani clearly handled the ball, a free kick was automatically awarded? It was not obvious to me what Gomez was thinking, since he put the ball down several yards from where the handball happened, then seem confused as to what to do next. Perhaps he didn't see Nani was behind him? Could the ref have ultimately blown for a free kick after the goal was scored?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi John
An unfortunate incident that is made up of an number of incidents that added to the confusion.
First off it certainly looked like a penalty which was not awarded by MC. MC was then challenged by Paul Scholes and Nani then deliberately handles the ball. The referee moves away from the situation assuming that play will continue which will help perhaps limit the dissent. The AR assumes MC has seen all this and he does not signal. The referee does not signal advantage for the deliberate handling and he allows play to continue. Gomes who was 'busy' berating Nani does not realise that the free kick has not been awarded and then assumes incorrectly that play has been stopped, yet there was no whistle and the offence location was some 10 yards away. After the goal is scored the AR raises his flag to ensure that MC has seen all the incidents.
Personally I think MC was correct in law but his mechanics was poor. He had an out clause by using the AR to 'inform' him of the deliberate handling and go back and award the DFK. He could also have seen that 'advantage' was not going to accrue to Spurs when Gomes threw the ball down and go back himself to the deliberate handling offence.
Either of those two would have been the best decision and the correct decision is not always the best.
I recall also a number of weeks ago in a game involving Bolton. The Bolton goalkeeper caught the ball and he was slightly fouled. The GK then proceeded to strike the opponent while holdingthe ball inside the PA without play having been stopped. Referee then stopped play, dismissed the GK and awarded a the DFK to Bolton for the original foul. By using MC approach the decision would have been a penalty which would have been technically correct as the original foul was not called and the GK had the ball in his hands.
Had MC gone with a DFK to Spurs there would have been little complaint about that decision

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

The goalkeeper made a huge mistake at the highest level of the game. He had the ball safely in his hands, a referee who declined to award a penalty kick to the opponent, and who had declined to stop play when the opponent grabbed the ball (before the goalkeeper obtained possession.)

In a youth match, the referee would stop play when it is clear that the players aren't interested in advantage. At his level, why should the referee come to aid of the goalkeeper? 'Play to the whistle' has been the constant word since they were six.

Unless the assistant referee was following a pregame instruction, the only criticism I have is for the assistant referee's mechanics. The ball is already dead. With the sophisticated technology available to buzz the referee and then speak through the communications systems, why raise the flag? Without any technology, an assistant referee would simply stand still to indicate 'I have information about the apparent goal.' Raising the flag did not assist the referee.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 24303