[R] Bristol City vs Crystal Palace 'goal'

Discussion in 'Referee' started by Englishref, Aug 16, 2009.

  1. Englishref

    Englishref Member

    Jul 25, 2004
    London, England
    After last season's goal that was given by Stuart Attwell when it had actually gone wide, this year we have the opposite, a goal that wasn't given despite it going IN!

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B47o-cQXI_4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B47o-cQXI_4[/ame]

    Rob Shoebridge was the man in the middle, and Chris Knowles the AR involved.

    What do you think? :D
     
  2. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    Referees' chief Keith Hackett says sorry to furious Crystal Palace boss Neil Warnock over Freddie Sears' disallowed goal

    In general, those types of shots are very difficult to determine which side of the post they were on. In this case, all the circumstancial evidence points to a goal being scored, but it would be a very difficult call for the AR to make and if the CR was blinded to the actual contact with the back of the goal, it is reasonable that he might not have a high degree of confidence that a goal had actually been scored, and thus wasn't willing to allow it.


    I do find it odd that "the fourth official is not allowed to assist in the process had he seen it." The fourth official is authorized to indicate to the referee cases of violent conduct not seen by the referee. So he is supposed to pay some attention to the game. Despite the fact that judging whether the ball crossed the line or not is his responsibility, I don't see why what the fourth official sees must be treated as if he were a video replay board. I don't have a problem with the fourth official having very limited duties as to the types of calls he can "initiate", but I don't really understand why he can't contribute other information when requested.

    Likewise, the nearside AR could have been consulted on this type of play. Sure, in general, it is not his call to make a ball over the goal line decision from halfway across the field. But certainly he would have had a better view of which side of the post the ball went on than the far side AR. Was he treated like a video replay board, too?

    In many ways the fourth official is like the Vice President. He is only needed in an emergency. But since he is there, I don't see why he shouldn't be used, if the rest of the referee team don't feel they can make a confident decision without him, and the fourth official is confident with what he saw. In the end, in all cases, the center referee has the final decision.
     
  3. refmedic

    refmedic Member

    Sep 22, 2008
    [​IMG]

    I think it was an honest mistake by the officiating crew. I don't think that this mistake gives the manager the right to do this, though. Maybe he is telling the AR "It's ok, without my binoculars I couldn't see it either!". I did't like the tenor in Hackett's quotes from the article either. A mistake is a mistake, but the sarcasm was too much.

    No wonder the referees in England sometimes get a bad rap. Sarcastically alluding to the fact that an entire crew of referees is blind and stupid is irresponsible. I hope when this imbicile is gone, that we can expect a little more class from Mike Riley
     
  4. todler

    todler New Member

    Apr 6, 2008
    NN, VA
    I'd like to have seen it at full speed. There was an obvious significant rebound, it's possible the AR couldn't see where it hit. The CR should have seen it, but could have been screened as well. hard to fault them, really. They didn't see it, they can't award it.

    That said, as no Owls supporter, it couldn't happen to a nicer man. :D
     
  5. falcon.7

    falcon.7 New Member

    Feb 19, 2007
    Unknown animal

    Looks like duck

    Walks like duck

    Smells like duck

    Until it barks, IT'S A DUCK


    This is what happens when people overthink things. If 22 players decide it's a goal + both technical areas + 50,000 people + tens of thousands at home decide it's a goal, IT'S A GOAL.

    Honest mistake? No, this is a case of people not reading the game and keeping it simple, and instead having a full-out Senate subcommittee hearing in their head every time something happens on the field. This is basic stuff. Read the game. I'm sorry, but the argument that "they didn't see, so they can't award it" is bullpucky. This should never happen at that or any other level.

    And Keith Hackett? A stuffed olive has more influence than this man - it could choke someone important and change history.

    *end rant*
     
  6. sephjnr

    sephjnr Member

    Apr 19, 2004
    Bristol, England
    Club:
    Bristol City FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    Firstly, it was a goal. Fair enough.

    Secondly, the only issue I have is with Colin W. and Mr. Tango calling Bristol City cheats for not demanding the goal to stand out of sportsmanship or gifting them a free shot. That it's the ref's fault and solely the ref's fault is beyond doubt, and Palace would have done precisely the same thing considering Colin's previous history of manipulating games to his own ends and Palace's history of avoiding relegation in 2001 by capitalising on another reffing blunder (that time for a penalty not being awarded) to win a crucial game and sink Huddersfield Town in the process.

    Thirdly, our boss gifted a goal when managing Yeovil Town after his son (ha!) scored after an erroneous passback to the opposing goalie. He did that because he knew his team was at fault for that, and if he felt BCFC were at fault for The Goal That Should Have Been he would have done.
     
  7. whistleblowerusa

    whistleblowerusa BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Jun 25, 2001
    U.S.A.
    Hackett should be replaced. He says things that show he doesn't know the Laws himself. It is a 4th officials responsibility to provided needed information to the officiating crew. He is was correct though in making a statement that the crew should have seen the goal. These are professional Referees. Yes, we all make mistakes but how could everyone in the stadium see a goal and the 4 people trained and paid to make these decisions not see it? What were they looking at during the game. It was a shot on goal. I guess they want to become one of those line judges on the goal line instead of a real referee.
     
  8. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    Hackett calls for goal-line technology after gaffe

     
  9. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
  10. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    I agree with that. Apparently there was no infringement.

     
  11. Englishref

    Englishref Member

    Jul 25, 2004
    London, England
    As I've said before, I suspect after the Attwell gaffe last year, and now this one, when the IFAB meet next summer with egg on their faces over the failed extra officials proposal, The FA will push harder than ever for goal line technology to be introduced in some format.
     
  12. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    I said this before, but don't you think consulting the 1st AR and 4th official might have made a difference in this case and the Attwell phantom goal last year?
     
  13. Englishref

    Englishref Member

    Jul 25, 2004
    London, England
    Don't forget that in both instances, the referee and ARs were miked up. a) we don't know if anything was said, and b) if the AR or 4O thought they'd have helped, they'd have been able to via the headsets.
     
  14. thomthepom

    thomthepom New Member

    Aug 18, 2009
    Club:
    Queens Park Rangers FC
    why was there a stanchion, a post, a net support, or in fact ANYTHING solid behind the goal-line that the ball could bounce off? while the technology debate rumbles on, why not just insist that all nets are made up of nothing except net (other than exterior support poles) so that once the ball crosses the line between the posts and under the crossbar, all it hits is a loose net, into which it nestles rather than bouncing out? what's so difficult about that?
     
  15. PVancouver

    PVancouver Member

    Apr 1, 1999
    In the article I linked in the second post in this thread, it says:


    'You would like to think the match officials, the three of them, would have spotted the ball had crossed the line,' said Hackett, general manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Board.

    'You would first of hope they have spotted that particular incident. Under law, the fourth official is not allowed to assist in the process had he seen it.


    Hackett lists three officials, but clearly it is not the responsibility of the AR opposite the goal in question to contribute to the goal decision. I didn't see this AR being consulted in this case, although as you say, it is certainly possible that he was, even if the consultation was not face to face. Hackett rules out the possibility that the fourth official could contribute his observation.
     
  16. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    While this is technically true under a strict reading of the Laws, I wonder if it should really apply, anymore.

    In the Laws, the only on-field, dynamic-play decision the fourth is supposed to be involved in is violent conduct not seen by the referee. That provision is very narrow and specific.

    But we now regularly see fourths assist with SFP v. reckless tackle decisions that occur right in front of them. And fourths advise referees to give cautions. Then there's the silent assistance that 4ths sometimes give with throw-ins that are near them when their view is better than the SAR. None of these things, strictly speaking, is a power enumerated to the fourth official in the Laws.

    So if a fourth saw the goal, why shouldn't he relay that info? Especially if we're allowing him to make other game-changing decisions?
     
  17. IASocFan

    IASocFan Moderator
    Staff Member

    Aug 13, 2000
    IOWA
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've never officiated in a game with 4 officials, but whenever I'm CR, I want the help of the entire officiating team. All the training I've received is to "GET THE CALL RIGHT."

    Particularly when there is a goal involved.
     
  18. refmedic

    refmedic Member

    Sep 22, 2008
    It's funny you say that. I was watching a match at USYSA Nationals a few weeks back, and a player threw the ball directly into the goal from a throw-in. It was obvious to everyone that the ball never touched anyone; except the referee and the near-side AR. Even the parents of the team that "scored" were pretty honest about the ball not touching anyone. The far side AR, standing about 6 feet in front of me, raised his flag and called the CR over. I was close enough to hear most of the short conversation, and that AR told the CR that the ball had not touched anyone before going into the goal. The CR took the ball off of the center mark and restarted with a goal kick. It didn't look pretty, but pretty much everyone agreed that the referee TEAM got the call right. The CR could have chosen not to go with the AR's advice, but at least he would have had all available information when he made his decision. I thought it was a pretty balsy thing for that AR to do, but he did it, and it worked out correctly.
     
  19. falcon.7

    falcon.7 New Member

    Feb 19, 2007
    I wonder, if at any point between the ball entering the net and the restart, did anyone on the crew think, "gee, maybe we've bollocksed this one"? Remember Alex Prus earlier in the year (or maybe last season) calling a PK and sending off a defender, realizing he probably screwed up, and then being man enough to wipe it all out?

    At some point it's no longer about trying to make it look like you know what you're doing. You've already created the perception you're incompetent, so at least be incompetent but right. The Laws allow you to change a decision before the restart. It doesn't happen very often (nor should it), but in extraordinary circumstances when a mistake has clearly been made, it's absolutely acceptable to do so. Everyone on the field loved Alex after he did that, because they were able to see the big picture of the Spirit of the Game. The argument is, "if we change the call it'll make us look like fools". TOO LATE. Put the other 5 rounds into your foot and get on with it.
     

Share This Page