Case for the defence: Mark Clattenburg.

Incident - Nanis goal - Manchester Utd v Tottenham Hotspur

If this were a case within the backrooms of Wembley stadium you would hope that Clatts would plead guilty and take the mandatory punishment of a week at Aldershot or Burton, or worse 4th official to Stuart Attwell.

There is almost no doubt this will happen, however serious questions must be asked. Clattenburg is one of the new generation of Referees, pampered professionals with fitness coaches, psychiatrist's and team bonding weekends. The whole idea of professional referees when they were introduced in 2001 was to reduce the pressure levels on the referees, taking away the 9-5 job and giving them sufficient time to prepare to potentially change the course of a clubs history with the single blow of a whistle. Referees such as Clattenburg,Webb, Atkinson, Oliver, Attwell should have to prove it works to stop any potential critics such as Sir Alex Ferguson claiming that a day job helps take the referees mind off big decisions made the previous week.

The incident itself was farcical : Nani fell under a timid challenge from Kaboul. Having fallen he then placed his hand on the ball. Gomes presuming it was a Tottenham freekick rolled the ball out to take the freekick, Nani then came from behind Gomes, pounced on the ball and slotted it home. Cue mayhem ...

1. The penalty decision was correct

The immediate concern was the penalty call, which Clattenburg got correct. Nani has previous for soft penalty appeals and this was no different, Kaboul brushed past him at best. Nani looked for it and got nothing.

2. The Assitant should have seen it.

Simon Beck, the assitant in question played a bemusing role in this. Firstly, the handball was in his "area of credibility" and therefore if seen he should of flagged. To then offer no assitance until after Nani had scored is unprofessional. If, as he claimed to Heurelho Gomes, he "knew it was handball" he should have flagged long before he eventually did, to save Clattenburg's dignity if nothing else. His other mistake was not then convincing Clatts to give the freekick for handball, if he had seen it he should have made the point clear to stop the game descending into farce.

3. Was Clattenburg blind to the handball.

If you see the replays and Clattenburg's positioning this is unclear. His position is first class for dealing with the penalty appeal and his release to the drop zone from the goal kick he would be expecting to come. However, could he see the handball ? Maybe. It appears at the point of hand to ball impact that he is looking at Scholes appealing for a penalty. Even so he must have queried how the ball had stayed on the field after Nani's fall to the ground.

4. Finally, did he play Advantage ...

For a referee of Clattenburg's quality you would hope this was not the case. In a recent assessment I was criticised for "giving advantages in problematic positions for the team with possession". This is effectively what Clattenburg seems to have claimed to have done, on a much bigger stage. The only person who can tell us if this was the case is Rio Ferdinand, who inexplicably was not told to "go away" by the officials. Clattenburg is contracted not to talk, Ferdinand isn't and could provide the answer to the lack of signal or call from Clattenburg.

Verdict : Guilty - but Beck must fall with him.