Question Number: 24303

Mechanics 11/10/2010

RE: NFHS and USSF 8 Under 19

Jim of Kansas City, Mo USA asks...

This question is a follow up to question 24257

So much wrong happened in the Man U/Spurs Nani goal.
Even though his side benefited, I read that Sir Alex stated the referee made a mess of it.
I have several questions.
I had occasion to see a replay, and noticed a couple of other things.
It certainly looked like Man U's Scholles grabbed the referee's shoulder and turned him in dissent for not awarding the penalty.
Should the referee have allowed this kind of conduct? If he'd then stopped play to caution Scholles, the ensuing goal would not have happened.
I'm not sure the contact with Nani in the penalty area warranted a foul. Yes the defender grabbed at him, but the contact was minimal. Could then an argument be made for cautioning Nani for embellishment?
Now, once it was decided in that split second that the contact with Nani was not a foul, then his subsequent deliberate handling seemed to be an obvious foul, but since the keeper then gathered the ball removing any potential advantage, is it then not a foul, or should the referee have made a clear, definite indication of 'play on.' Had he done that, the confusion could have been averted.
This referee working his first EPL game seemed to be a bit overwhelmed. Why did he allow the Man U player to be arguing in close proximity to his discussion with the AR? Should he not have sent the player away, or removed himself and his AR to a greater distance while signaling to the player to hold his spot? If the player then did not comply, isn't then a caution justified?
Might have him being on the big stage for the first time hindered him from employing one important aspect,
the spirit of the game,
which would have led him to disallow the goal which was certainly 'unearned', by either enforcing the deliberate handling which he could have easily 'sold' after conferring with his AR, stopping play for Scholle's misconduct, or could one conjure a better reason that would be readily accepted?

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Jim
The referee in question is Referee Mark Clattenburg and he has been a PL referee since 2004 and a FIFA badged referee since 2006. So he is well experienced and he has refereed at the highest level and officiated in top games for some time including key games in the PL.
The general reaction in the UK was that the referee was correct in Law and that Gomes should have played to the whistle which he chose not to do. The only real criticism of the referee was the lack of a clear advantage signal. Indeed the AR raised his flag as he was not sure if advantage was being played either.
As regards your questions I would make the following comments
1. The referee will know Scholes for many seasons and he will have dealt with him in many games. He dismisses the player's reaction and moves away quickly. PL referees rarely if ever stop the game for dissent
2. At this level unless there is no contact referees will not caution for simulation. There is contact on Nani yet not enough in the opinion of the referee to award a foul.
3. The 'best' decision for the game would have been to award the DFK for deliberate handling when it became obvious that Spurs were not gaining an advantage through the actions of Gomes. Many agree that the ball in the GK's hands with the potential for a throw or punt was sufficient advantage. However that was on the assumption that Gomes was fully concentrating on the game when in fact he was more interested in berating Nani for what he believed was simulation. Gomes did not know that play in fact had not been stopped. and made an incorrect assumption
All in all it was poor mechanics on behalf of the referee and the game could have done without such a controversial incident. I suspect he will handle these situation differently should it arise again.

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

See Question: 24357