WHY CLATTENBERG GOT IT WRONG. END OF.
I’m not going to discuss the result of Man Utd v Spurs this past weekend, I’m going to explain to everyone why Mark Clattenberg made several errors (talksport’s Adrian Durham, take note).
From the very first minute, when Nani challenged Ekotto for an ariel ball and fell clutching his leg and screaming injustice (replays showed Ekotto didn’t touch him) Clattenberg allowed himself to be worked by United’s infamous moaning. He booked two Spurs centre-halves for first challenges, neither particularly poor, one a dubious free-kick as the player got some of the ball. he did not book United players for similar/worse challenges.
And then came the moment.
Nani, who had been trying to work the officials all match (noted above) took a very animated tumble in the box. He looked incredulously at the referee for a penalty. He placed his hand ontop of the ball as he sat up looking like a hurt child. No penalty was given. Gomes picked up the ball, Clattenberg turned away and moved up-field. Everyone assumed a free-kick had been given. Nani get up, runs back upfield, sees Gomes has thrown the ball down and is stepping back to take a free-kick he thinks has been given, and looks at Clattenberg to see if the ball is technically ‘live’. Clattenburg shrugs his shoulders. Nani pokes the ball back into the net. The linesman raises his flag. Clattenberg goes to listen, waves Spurs players away. Rio Ferdinand comes trotting up and stands 3 yards from Clattenberg and his linesman, all the while yakking at them. He is ignored despite the fact he is clearly encroaching on the referee. Clattenberg runs back to the centre-circle and gives a goal. Spurs captain Modric goes up to complain and immediately gets a yellow card. This after having retreated to the centre-circle as earlier requested.
It was, at the very very least, a free-kick. Everyone thought it had been given it was so obvious.
Apparently, Clattenberg had ‘played the advantage’. Rubbish. It looks good after the fact, but there is no advantage when 5 of your players are in an around your own box and only two of the opposition remain. Plus note to Mark; there is no advantage in letting the player who dove in the box, handled the ball, then placed his hand on the ball again, get up, trot back, and turn around to kick the ball into the net. Thus a player who tried to con a penalty and then handled the ball twice has actually been the ONLY beneficiary? Mark, Mark, MARK! THERE’S NO ADVANTAGE FOR SPURS THERE!!! And further, the gesture for illustrating ‘play-on’ is not, as I know it, shrugging your shoulders. What is the point of the linesman making any contact with the referee if he’s not going to be heard? And why didn’t Clattenberg book Ferdinand for harrassment? While we’re at it, can I ask, why was Paul Scholes allowed to manhandle the referee when United didn’t get the penalty they thought they were due?
Clattenberg’s silence is both defeaning and telling. He allowed himself to get worked over from the first minute by a typical whinging United performance, and he ultimately got it wrong. And whatever talkshow pundits bark on about, whatever other media figures try to say to counter the moment, Mark Clattenberg made a series of errors which are consistent in nature with other errors he’s made at The Theatre Of Dreams.
He should’ve done everyone a favor and just given a penalty for the dive. At least he’d have had half a leg to stand on.
End of story.
