The situation isn’t complicated.
Here’s a potted time line of is yet another nail in the coffin for those who tell us that video technology would destroy the game. These are the same people I presume who’s grandparents told us that the Titanic was unsinkable.
1.The whistle for an arguable penalty is not blown.
2.The whistle for Nani’s handball on the floor is not blown.
3.The linesman’s flag for the handball is raised.
4.Nani nips in and scores a perfectly legitimate goal.
5. On Nani’s birth certificate the box marked father’s name has the words, ‘some soldiers’, written in it.
So whilst on a morally evolved sliding scale (that ranges from plankton to human) Nani rates about the same as ‘stepping in dog poo whilst wearing new suede shoes on a very hot and sunny day’ …but the real question is what Clatternberg’s motivation was to discount the linesman.
Clatternberg is entitled to overule Nani’s handball. He is entitled to say he felt he had a clear view himself and that he saw no such offence. He is entitled to say that there are little green men living in his toupe who know all the words to ELO’s Blinded By The Light if he so chooses.
But that along with all his other ‘entitled opinions’ only serves to prove he, along with too many others are not fit/able to referee sufficiently well without assistance from someone sat in front of a TV screen with the benefit of 17 different camera angles, slo mo and rewind.
The law is an ass. And coincidence or not, it won’t sit well with Tottenham fans that this is the second comedy goal they have been made to suffer at the hands of an inadequate referee at Old Trafford.