This is from the Championship match between Watford and Reading. The referee is Stuart Attwell, only 25 years old, newly promoted to the Select Group, and is tipped as the next big thing in England. The AR involved is Nigel Bannister, a vastly experienced SG AR. Just take a look at this. You won't see something like this again for a long, long time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOiKdny8RoY How none of the other three officials spotted Bannister's balls up is unbelievable. Utterly embarassing, and methinks we wont be seeing Bannister in the PL for a while, while Attwell's remarkable risk through the ranks (promoted every single year) may just have the brakes applied now...
Agreed a bad decision. There was no goal. Stuff happens. Player or two by the goal line obscured the vision of the AR. Referee should have had the good judgment to realize the ball was no where inside the goal.
I just cannot fathom that....... The AR should have been able to see the ball between him and the post. Granted at the ref's angle he should have been able to see the same thing, his eff up is more understandable... On second thought, your intuition must kick in when there are no players celebrating a goal, ESPECIALLY at this level. I cannot understand how the referee could have missed reading the game..... From an AFP article... "Hosts Watford eventually rallied to claim a 2-2 draw on Saturday but the assistant referees' manager for Professional Game Match Officials, Paul Rejer, said Bannister would be given some "operational advice", a move that appeared to absolve Attwell of responsibility."
It's not even the most recent example in a national competition over in England. Something similar happened in one of the FA Vase games played on the same day, a crucial goal too as it helped decide the outcome of the tie. The side who 'scored' were trailing 1-0 at the time (reasonably late on too). This made it 1-1 and they went on to win in extra time.
Even worse, did the CR and AR think that the Watford player cleared their own goal out of the net? On the play where the AR says the goal occurred, the Watford player is trying to keep the ball in and kicks it back to the center of 18. Did the AR think he was trying to keep his own team's goal out of the net?
Darn, YouTube pulled it because of copyright stuff. Anyone know the Asian site that usually has these and ignores the copyright? I can imagine the play, but I'd really like to see it myself.
All I can say is WOW! This is definitely one that the trail AR could have helped with. In my pregame I do the "If I'm going to do something that just completely screws up the game, come onto the field if you have to to get my attention and lets talk about it." This seems like one of those times that the trail would have an angle that could explain the situation. This is truly an injustice to the game and might actually be protestable. This wasn't an "in the opinion of the referee" type of mistake, but rather a blatant misapplication of the Laws. The physical fact is that the ball didn't even come close to going between the posts and below the crossbar. I'm not sure it even went over the goal line. Talk about getting hung out to dry by your AR. I wonder what it would have been like if the R was experienced and the AR was the young one. I'm guessing the R calls off the AR and the world is right again.
Whoa!! Looks really bad from the tv pictures. Obviously the AR had the sun in his eyes and that must have had something to do with it. I still can't figure out why caps are not allowed. Might have made a difference here. But as a previous poster stated - why would an attacking team try to clear their own goal chance off their opponent's goal line??
Not sure about this. Even if you assume that the AR is at midfield, he's about 60 yards away. And his line of sight is going to be almost at the exact same angle as Atwell's was--who was standing about 20 yards away. You're on a match like that and the lead AR and CR say goal... there's just no way you're calling them over to offer a different opinion. Strictly speaking, this isn't true. It was an "opinion of the referee" call. Their opinion was that the ball went over the line, between the goal posts. They acted accordingly per the Laws. There's no misapplication of any Law--just a serious error in judgment. And this is an important point. Because now there is talk about ordering a replay. And I suspect FIFA will balk. Something like this happened in the 1990s in the Budesliga. A goal was awarded when television replays clearly showed it hadn't crossed the line (or vice versa--can't remember specifically). I do remember, though, that the Budesliga ordered a replay (I believe because it could have affected promotion/relegation) and FIFA brought the hammer down, threatening to ban the German FA from all international competitions. In the coming days, we could see a similar fight between FIFA and the English FA. To be fair, though Atwell is 25, at this point he's supposed to be "experienced." If he's already in the SG and is being talked about as a FIFA for next year, then he's got to be able to call off this AR or any AR when he knows what the call is (or rather, what it isn't). Unless he was fully and completely screened (in which case, his positioning will be questioned), he had to see that this didn't go anywhere near the net. I suspect Atwell will pay for this temporarily. Bannister made a serious error in judgment and will definitely pay. But the buck has to stop with Atwell on this sort of play. It will be very interesting to see the fallout from all this.
I see your point, but it is very possible that you get the trees and forest thing happening. If a 6-3 defender runs a yard in front of you the entire field disappears. If the same player is 40 yards away, you can still see the direction of the ball and where it had a chance to go over the line. I understand your point, but I believe that situation was one where it was at least near the goal and was truly a goal/no goal decision. This was an Out of Play decision (GK or CK) that was a good 4-5 yards from the goal. It's likely that the only person in the stadium that saw it as a goal was the AR and the R is just backing him up. I believe that the German situation was one where there was considerable question on both sides as to a goal or no goal before a TV replay. It will be interesting to see what comes from the FA and then what FIFA says about it. It could shape how the Laws are interpreted and what kind of goal line technology or reviews will be done in the future.
what puzzles me (sadly I wasn't there, but even if I had been it would have been at the far end) is why the ref didn't think "hang on, at no stage in that move was there a shot on target" and realised a goal wasn't physically possible. It's also a bit of a mystery as to why the Watford players couldn't get across that same message. Surely one of them must have mentioned that the only thing resembling a "shot" was about 5 yards wide. funnily enough it's the second time Reading have had such a decision. In the 1970s we had a free-kick on the edge of the area which hit the side-netting, and despite everybody lining up for the goal kick, the ref decided that the ball had gone in, and it was a goal.
No replay: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=574793&sec=england&cc=5901 Looks like the English authorities knew they'd get nowhere with FIFA.
Attwell is a buffoon, and I'm not at all surprised that he gave the goal, because he is a terrible, terrible referee. The linesman made a mistake, but surely the incompetant fool should have realised from his position that at no point did the ball go remotely close to the goal?