The Nani Goal

fredthered said:
Your theory falls down in one particular points.

If the referee has seen the handball then he is obliged to issue a yellow card to Nani for deliberate handball.

If, as you suggest he was playing the advantage, the next time the ball goes dead he must issue Nani with a yellow card. The fact he's allowed an advantage does not stop him from his obligation to issue Nani with a yellow card.

Did Nani get a yellow card for the handball ? No he didnt. Therefore its 100% guaranteed that the ref didnt see it.

( and the fact the cameras caught him admitting as much to Gomez does suggest he didnt either )
Click to expand...

Not at all fred, how many times do we see divers not getting a card even though they should do? Hundreds. Just because he wasn't carded doesn't mean he didn't see it. Happens all the time where divers are caught out and not carded.

Therefore the theory stands fine, it isn't 100% guaranteed that the ref didn't see it just because Nani wasn't carded.
 
It was a wrong decision all things considered but it's not like Tottenham would have got anything from that game (they're even bigger bottlers than we are), I'd have rather not see us score that goal though simply because it rose controversies and we didn't really need that much.
 
B Cantona said:
Plenty of evidence on this site to show I'm not just a sheep. People have conviction, and your cheap way of trying to gain moral high ground on the debate looks pretty shallow in the circumstances. Especially when its clear the goal was legitimate, as even the likes of Kevin Keegan were forced to concede
Click to expand...

The goal was legitimate if you follow the letter of the law.

But anyone who saw Nani handle that ball that says he didnt commit an offence is a brain dead retard.

If Nani handled that ball then it should have been a free kick.

You admit he handled it. So therefore you admit it SHOULD have been a free kick.

Just because somewhere along the line someone fecked up and didn't give it, it doesnt alter the fact that a United player still commiitted an offence which went unpunished and as a direct result we scored from it.

If you cannot understand why people would feel aggrieved about that, or claim it wasnt a particularly fair incident, then I really pity you.

I suppose next you will be telling us all the ball didnt cross the line when Mendez' shot bounced out of Carrolls hands..

Just because the ref didnt award it, it doesn't make it right.
 
:lol: @ the people crying out about how immoral the goal is. If you're looking for morality, football isn't the place to find it. Simple fact of the matter is that when you step out onto the pitch, you're attempting to win a football match. Some will bend the rules, some will outright break them in their attempts to achieve that. In this particular case, Nani played within the rules and scored because of it. I fail to see what's immoral in that.
 
fredthered said:
The goal was legitimate if you follow the letter of the law.

But anyone who saw Nani handle that ball that says he didnt commit an offence is a brain dead retard.

If Nani handled that ball then it should have been a free kick.

You admit he handled it. So therefore you admit it SHOULD have been a free kick.

Just because somewhere along the line someone fecked up and didn't give it, it doesnt alter the fact that a United player still commiitted an offence which went unpunished and as a direct result we scored from it.

If you cannot understand why people would feel aggrieved about that, or claim it wasnt a particularly fair incident, then I really pity you.

I suppose next you will be telling us all the ball didnt cross the line when Mendez' shot bounced out of Carrolls hands..

Just because the ref didnt award it, it doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

Anyone who doesn't understand the playing the advantage rule is a brain dead retard.
 
B Cantona said:
Plenty of evidence on this site to show I'm not just a sheep. People have conviction, and your cheap way of trying to gain moral high ground on the debate looks pretty shallow in the circumstances. Especially when its clear the goal was legitimate, as even the likes of Kevin Keegan were forced to concede
Click to expand...

Ok....
 
fredthered said:
The goal was legitimate if you follow the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

But this is all that matters.

If the law needs changing, fair enough, but you can't seriously suggest that refs arbitrarily over-rule the laws with something they think makes more sense?

How's that yellow card thing going, btw? Are you off checking the LOTG?
 
fredthered said:
The goal was legitimate if you follow the letter of the law.

But anyone who saw Nani handle that ball that says he didnt commit an offence is a brain dead retard.

If Nani handled that ball then it should have been a free kick.

You admit he handled it. So therefore you admit it SHOULD have been a free kick.

Just because somewhere along the line someone fecked up and didn't give it, it doesnt alter the fact that a United player still commiitted an offence which went unpunished and as a direct result we scored from it.
Click to expand...

So basically, you're scrapping the advantage rule completely
 
A1Dan said:
So, back to my original question... (stay calm this time, nobody is sayign Nani's was accidental):

What offence incurs a free kick and no booking... accidental hand ball?
Click to expand...

There are many offences that incur a freekick and no booking ( offside being one )

The laws of football are 100% clear. if a player deliberately handles the ball then the referee should award a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

That is not even debateable. That is one of the laws of the game.

As a former referee I am well versed on what does and doesnt constitute a yellow card offence. I know off the top of my head the four categories that yellow cards come under.

You however I suspect dont.
 
fredthered said:
The goal was legitimate if you follow the letter of the law
Click to expand...

Here endeth the debate. That's all that matters. Was it some great refereeing injustice? No, because he got it right

The ref can stop play for Nani handling, or he can let things progress because Spurs already had possession of the ball. You know that

Having not blown for a freekick, I should think its pretty bloody obvious whats going on, and perhaps Gomes shouldn't chuck the ball on the floor back into open play. Thick as pigshit, Nani was clever and on the ball, and he was rewarded thus
 
fredthered said:
There are many offences that incur a freekick and no booking ( offside being one )

The laws of football are 100% clear. if a player deliberately handles the ball then the referee should award a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

That is not even debateable. That is one of the laws of the game.
Click to expand...

So all handballs are bookings?

I'm not sure I'd like to have been reffed by you...
 
fredthered said:
Your theory falls down in one particular points.

If the referee has seen the handball then he is obliged to issue a yellow card to Nani for deliberate handball.
Click to expand...

The Laws of the Game is LESS THAN 50 feckING PAGES LONG!

I swear to god, the number of football fans, pundits, players and other assorted "experts" who have never even bothered to read the rulebook drives me insane.

"Referees are reminded that deliberately handling the ball is normally punished only by a direct free-kick or penalty kick if the offence occurred inside the penalty area.

"A caution or dismissal is not normally required."
Click to expand...
 
Nani could not of just picked up the ball placed it on the penalty spot and placed it in the net without the ref awarding him the penalty, so why should Gomes be able to place the ball down in any random position to take a free kick that has not been awarded??
 
cw1984 said:
RedCafé never fails to amaze me. Had that been the other way around there would not be a single person on here stating the goal should have stood.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. It'd have been a shiteous error which a keeper like VDS should have known better than to make, imo.
 
EdWeatherall said:
So basically, you're scrapping the advantage rule completely
Click to expand...

The ref has carte blanche to play an advantage.

However what he must do, the next time the ball is dead, is go back and deal with the offender appropriately.

Supposing a player goes in with a studs up tackle that would merit a red card. The ball is still in posession of the attacking team. The ref plays an advantage. The next time the ball goes dead ( irrespective of outcome. even if the attacking team score ) the ref has to go back to the player and issue the red card even though he hasn't stopped play.

If he waved the advantage, then the next time the ball went dead he should have gone back and booked Nani for deliberately handling the ball.

The fact he didnt do that suggests to me that he didnt see it.
 
Got to love Arsenal Mania. Some of them are convinced Nani dived for the "penalty" :lol:

Don't they ever watch their own team!? How on earth was it a dive? There are one or two who're talking sense there but many of them with the typical "he dived"
 
fredthered said:
The ref has carte blanche to play an advantage.

However what he must do, the next time the ball is dead, is go back and deal with the offender appropriately.

Supposing a player goes in with a studs up tackle that would merit a red card. The ball is still in posession of the attacking team. The ref plays an advantage. The next time the ball goes dead ( irrespective of outcome. even if the attacking team score ) the ref has to go back to the player and issue the red card even though he hasn't stopped play.

If he waved the advantage, then the next time the ball went dead he should have gone back and booked Nani for deliberately handling the ball.

The fact he didnt do that suggests to me that he didnt see it.
Click to expand...

Fred, its not an automatic booking offence, and the evidence has already been posted in the thread

Why not save yourself further embarrassment, and walk away from the thread?
 
fredthered said:
The ref has carte blanche to play an advantage.

However what he must do, the next time the ball is dead, is go back and deal with the offender appropriately.

Supposing a player goes in with a studs up tackle that would merit a red card. The ball is still in posession of the attacking team. The ref plays an advantage. The next time the ball goes dead ( irrespective of outcome. even if the attacking team score ) the ref has to go back to the player and issue the red card even though he hasn't stopped play.If he waved the advantage, then the next time the ball went dead he should have gone back and booked Nani for deliberately handling the ball.

The fact he didnt do that suggests to me that he didnt see it.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt the ref would allow play to continue if he was going to issue a red card.
 
fredthered said:
The ref has carte blanche to play an advantage.

However what he must do, the next time the ball is dead, is go back and deal with the offender appropriately.

Supposing a player goes in with a studs up tackle that would merit a red card. The ball is still in posession of the attacking team. The ref plays an advantage. The next time the ball goes dead ( irrespective of outcome. even if the attacking team score ) the ref has to go back to the player and issue the red card even though he hasn't stopped play.

If he waved the advantage, then the next time the ball went dead he should have gone back and booked Nani for deliberately handling the ball.

The fact he didnt do that suggests to me that he didnt see it.
Click to expand...

No he does not. The rule book has been quoted for you to clarify it for you.
 
Chabon said:
The Laws of the Game is LESS THAN 50 feckING PAGES LONG!

I swear to god, the number of football fans, pundits, players and other assorted "experts" who have never even bothered to read the rulebook drives me insane.
Click to expand...

That's kind of what I was getting at too.

I think Fred may currently be working his way through his old match reports, ringing players up and apologising for booking them for handball...
 
fredthered said:
There are many offences that incur a freekick and no booking ( offside being one )

The laws of football are 100% clear. if a player deliberately handles the ball then the referee should award a yellow card for unsporting behaviour.

That is not even debateable. That is one of the laws of the game.

As a former referee I am well versed on what does and doesnt constitute a yellow card offence. I know off the top of my head the four categories that yellow cards come under.

You however I suspect dont.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

This isn't exactly my argument, but I've only just noticed your faux-expertise, and it's painful nonsense which deserves to be skewered. So, in addition to what I posted above:

Cautionable offences
A player is cautioned and shown the yellow card if he commits any of the
following seven offences:
• unsporting behaviour
• dissent by word or action
• persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game
• delaying the restart of play
• failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner
kick, free kick or throw-in
• entering or re-entering the fi eld of play without the referee’s permission
• deliberately leaving the fi eld of play without the referee’s permission
Click to expand...

Of course the first one may suggest that "deliberate handball" could be a cautionable offence, but that's not a rule, it's the referee's prerogative.
 
It was a fair goal. At least the ref was good enough to spot when Nani fouled herself and tried to get a pen in the 2nd minute.
 
B Cantona said:
Fred, its not an automatic booking offence, and the evidence has already been posted in the thread

Why not save yourself further embarrassment, and walk away from the thread?
Click to expand...

That is only a small part of the FA law book, a copy of which is sat in front of me now ( its law 12 ).

What that person doesnt offer is the other countless newsletters, briefings and instructions referees are given by the FA which give further guidance to referees to apply the laws.

I have been on countless referees seminars where this discussion has been debated.

What constitutes handball
What is deliberate handball
What is ball to hand
When does a handball merit a yellow card.
When does a handball merit a red card.

All of these things are discussed on a regular basis.

The way Nani reached over and handled the ball, that is as clear a case of unsporting behaviour as you are going to get.

To claim it wasnt unsporting is almost as laughable as those that claim that if a player isnt awarded a penalty then they automatically have to get a booking for diving ( which is one used by TV pundits regularly and used today in fact ).

The ref has the sole discretion to decide what he feels is an offence worthy of a yellow or a red card. 99.999% of refs seeing what Nani did would have given him a yellow card for it.
 
Chabon said:
Of course the first one may suggest that "deliberate handball" could be a cautionable offence, but that's not a rule, it's the referee's prerogative.
Click to expand...

There is a specific statement on it:

There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player:
• deliberately and blatantly handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining
possession
• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball

Neither applied in my opinion (nor the ref's)
 
fredthered said:
The way Nani reached over and handled the ball, that is as clear a case of unsporting behaviour as you are going to get.

To claim it wasnt unsporting....
Click to expand...

Except nobody has claimed that either (though it's actually very debatable, but that's a separate matter). Nobody has mentioned unsporting behaviour.

You claimed, several times that deliberate handball is always a booking.

You've now moved on to unsporting behaviour, so I take it you acknowledge your original error?
 
The linesman put his flag up after the goal had been given...

Not seen it on TV yet, but I thought it was a clear penalty on Nani.
 
fredthered said:
I really do give up..

Some on here are so wrapped up in United and their belief that nothing United do can ever be wrong, or anything that happens is totally fair if it goes in Uniteds favour, and unfair if it goes against us.

For anyone to claim that was an accidental handball just proves the stupid depths people will go to to prove how much they will stand by United.

You just cant debate with people who are just so wrapped up in "I love United so I stand by them no matter what " kind of mentality.
Click to expand...

That’s rich coming from someone that refers to the foul on Nani, that precedes the handball as being irrelevant.

Irrelevant, because conveniently, it doesn't fit in with your argument.
 
jojojo said:
There is a specific statement on it:

There are circumstances when a caution for unsporting behaviour is required when a player deliberately handles the ball, e.g. when a player:
• deliberately and blatantly handles the ball to prevent an opponent gaining
possession
• attempts to score a goal by deliberately handling the ball
Click to expand...

Not...

• stops the ball with his hand because he presumes he has a penalty, gaining no advantage

?
 
Sultan said:
The linesman put his flag up after the goal had been given...

Not seen it on TV yet, but I thought it was a clear penalty on Nani.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he put his flag up because the Spurs players had told him they had a free kick, he was obviously a bit confused, so decided he'd better consult with the referee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.