Dissapointed- The goal that Never was.

[BR2]

This is the time of year for us to be in the limelight.
Previously we had massive media coverage of the Hunt/Cech incident and now we have the same level of coverage for a run-of-the-mill Championship game.

Coppell did the decent thing in not objecting to a replayed game even if he knew that it would never happen so whereas with the Cech/Hunt incident I got the feeling that the rest of football tended to side with Cech this time I think that they will be neutral because of what Coppell has said.

One obvious thing to come out of it is the use of technology- surely it must happen more in the future so that most incidents (there will always be the odd unresolvable issue) can be clarified within a very short period despite the worry of refs that they will be undermined.
For the sake of the game it is better that the officials are occasionally proved to be wrong rather than fans thinking they have been cheated (e.g Spurs at Old Trafford Mr Clattenburgh).

[SCIAG]

This is the time of year for us to be in the limelight.
Previously we had massive media coverage of the Hunt/Cech incident and now we have the same level of coverage for a run-of-the-mill Championship game.

Coppell did the decent thing in not objecting to a replayed game even if he knew that it would never happen so whereas with the Cech/Hunt incident I got the feeling that the rest of football tended to side with Cech this time I think that they will be neutral because of what Coppell has said.

Even Jens Lehmann sided with Hunt ffs. Neither party did anything wrong in either incident.

[FiNeRaIn]

Even Jens Lehmann sided with Hunt ffs.

I assume that was a joke?

[SCIAG]

Even Jens Lehmann sided with Hunt ffs.

I assume that was a joke?

No, he did. I'll find the quote and prove it.

[SCIAG]

Okay- can't find it, but I distinctly remember the Independent reporting his quote.

The closest I can find is him saying that only Hunt knows whether it was intentional and he can't believe a player would delibarately do that to someone. He went on to say that 'keepers need more protection. That's certainly not siding against Hunt (though neither is it siding with him).

[FiNeRaIn]

He absolutely slated hunt so you have the wrong person.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/ ... 48600.html

[Franchise FC]

Some Rochdale fans have long memories

Reading cheating: they have form

Whilst everyone is going on about Reading's phantom goal at the weekend, it would appear they have form for it and last time it was us who were on the receiving end of this blatant cheating.

Back in 1975, Dale were the visitors to Reading's Elm Park as it was then on the opening day of the season, and with just ten minutes gone in the clock, their central defender Tommy Youlden hit a free kick from outside of the box which went narrowly past the post, hitting the side netting.

Referee Walter Harvey in his infinite wisdom decided that the goal had been scored and marched the players back to the half way line. Dale keeper Mike Poole was far from impressed and chased after Harvey before booting the ball out of the ground in protest earning a yellow card for his troubles.

Dale never recovered from this blow and went on to lose the game 2-0. And arguably it had a massive knock on effect on our season as we kicked off the season on the back foot, no doubt costing us promotion that year. Of course, there was no media bandwagon to stick up for Dale or calls on Fifa to have the game replayed. This would never have happened on Ked Redfern's watch, thats for sure.

Surely this happening twice to Reading in thirty three years is more than just a coincidence.

I was on the Tilehurst end and it was blatantly obvious that the ball had hit the side netting. Didn't stop me celebrating and I had not one thought that we'd cheated. The only thing I'd disagree about was the yellow card - didn't have them in those prehistoric days.

[Franchise FC]

Might as well replay the 1966 world cup while we're at it, as England really only drew it 2-2

Ah, except that the free-kick given to Germany when they equalised at the end of normal time was a joke and Schnellinger (spelling?) handled the ball in the run up to the goal. Reverse that decision and Martin Peters becomes the all-time England hero because we won in normal time 2-1.

[Franchise FC]

This is the time of year for us to be in the limelight.
Previously we had massive media coverage of the Hunt/Cech incident and now we have the same level of coverage for a run-of-the-mill Championship game.

Coppell did the decent thing in not objecting to a replayed game even if he knew that it would never happen so whereas with the Cech/Hunt incident I got the feeling that the rest of football tended to side with Cech this time I think that they will be neutral because of what Coppell has said.

One obvious thing to come out of it is the use of technology- surely it must happen more in the future so that most incidents (there will always be the odd unresolvable issue) can be clarified within a very short period despite the worry of refs that they will be undermined.
For the sake of the game it is better that the officials are occasionally proved to be wrong rather than fans thinking they have been cheated (e.g Spurs at Old Trafford Mr Clattenburgh).

When will people get the idea that video technology WILL NOT WORK in football. It works in sports whwre there are natural breaks in the game during which the incident can be analysed (end of a point in tennis, try or not in rugby, etc.) but exactly how would you decide that the game needed to be stopped.

Here's an example for you all to digest :
It's the last minute of the Championship play-off and it's 0-0. Team A has a shot that may or may not have gone over the line (and between the posts,etc. etc.) but is hoofed away by a Team B defender up to the half way line where the lone Team B attacker has no defenders to beat and could be bearing down on goal. Do you :

a. stop the game, check whether it was over the line, then have a bounce ball from where the ball was ?
b. wait for the ball to go out of play, in which case what if Team B score ?

If you go for option b, what if that's in the middle of a game ? What do you do about the time elapsed between the incident and deciding whether it was a goal. If the ball stays in play for a minute or two, do you add those minutes on to the end of the game.

Another example :
Team A shoots, ball is 'cleared' and referee stops the game. However, ball had gone out to another Team A player who fires in a shot from 25 yards straight in. First shot is found not to have gone in and now the attacking team are doubly penalised because they've had a legitimate goal ruled out.

And another thing - I didn't hear calls for the Blackbburn -West Ham game to be replayed from 06-07 when Tevez stopped the ball going in from a VERY offside position, but the goal was given anyway. West Ham won and the rest is history (or maybe not given yesterdays ruling).

[Stranded]

Hawkeye would work perfectly well in football. You wouldn't even have to stop the game.

Fourth official in the stand with the technology can have the result in no more than 10 seconds. Plenty of time to stop scenario a and b there. An incident like Sat wouldn't even need the technology as you can tell instantly that the ball was nowhere near the goal and play on.

[Franchise FC]

Hawkeye would work perfectly well in football. You wouldn't even have to stop the game.

Fourth official in the stand with the technology can have the result in no more than 10 seconds. Plenty of time to stop scenario a and b there. An incident like Sat wouldn't even need the technology as you can tell instantly that the ball was nowhere near the goal and play on.

The game has to stop for hawkeye, and incidents like Saturday shouldn't need video or any other technology. Human eyes should've been enough.

Do you know how long it takes to get the ball from one end of the pitch to the other ? 10 seconds rules out exactly none of the scenarios.

[Southbank Old Boy]

Hawkeye would work perfectly well in football. You wouldn't even have to stop the game.

Fourth official in the stand with the technology can have the result in no more than 10 seconds. Plenty of time to stop scenario a and b there. An incident like Sat wouldn't even need the technology as you can tell instantly that the ball was nowhere near the goal and play on.

A reliable piece of goal line technology to sort out whether or not the ball goes in or out of play would be acceptable to me, and I'm anti any other technology creeping into the game. My only concerns are the speed and reliability of the decision, but I'd imagine they've got that sorted by now, and how far down the football pyramid it can be introduced. One of the beauties of the game is that it's essentially the same conditions for the professionals as it is the sunday morning park players. Take that away and you lose a little bit of the romance of the game.

As for video technology being used during a game, well thats just a daft idea. Just watch a weekends worth of Sky and Match of the Day's Premiership analysis and you'll see that the majority of controverial incidents cause some split in opinion in the studio. How anyone can suggest that a fourth official watching a video can end bad decisions is beyond me.

As for the Watford goal, we didn't do anything wrong at all.

[Southbank Old Boy]

Hawkeye would work perfectly well in football. You wouldn't even have to stop the game.

Fourth official in the stand with the technology can have the result in no more than 10 seconds. Plenty of time to stop scenario a and b there. An incident like Sat wouldn't even need the technology as you can tell instantly that the ball was nowhere near the goal and play on.

The game has to stop for hawkeye, and incidents like Saturday shouldn't need video or any other technology. Human eyes should've been enough.

Do you know how long it takes to get the ball from one end of the pitch to the other ? 10 seconds rules out exactly none of the scenarios.

It doesn't have to stop for hawkeye. Hawkeye can give an immediate in/out of play decision like it does/used to in tennis. That can be wired into the ref's electronic flag system and they can be notified immediately the moment the whole ball goes out of play

That's in theory. If there is any doubt about it they shouldn't use it

[Dirk Gently]

Hawkeye would work perfectly well in football. You wouldn't even have to stop the game.

Fourth official in the stand with the technology can have the result in no more than 10 seconds. Plenty of time to stop scenario a and b there. An incident like Sat wouldn't even need the technology as you can tell instantly that the ball was nowhere near the goal and play on.

The game has to stop for hawkeye, and incidents like Saturday shouldn't need video or any other technology. Human eyes should've been enough.

Do you know how long it takes to get the ball from one end of the pitch to the other ? 10 seconds rules out exactly none of the scenarios.

No it doesn't need to stop. The ref is wired up with a headset anyway, so if the ball crosses the goalline between the posts he hears a very loud beep in his earpiece the second it happens. A quicker indication to him than he'd get from a linesman flagging and pressing the buzzer on his flag handle.

[dean horrix legend]

Mr Holt has his say - no surprises!

· Reading's players should have stepped in to stop phantom goal farago
By Oliver Holt 24/09/2008
o


Let's be clear about one thing in the furore over the phantom goal awarded to Reading in their 2-2 draw with Watford on Saturday - if one player in Reading's side had any real courage or honesty, it wouldn't have stood.
It's as simple as that. I've heard all the garbage from Reading manager Steve Coppell about how it's not up to the opposition to right a wrong from the officials.
Well, I'm sorry, but when it's as blatant as this, I think it is.
When an injustice is that obvious and that unfathomable, the merest modicum of fair play demands that someone in Reading colours speaks out.
I can only think Watford boss Aidy Boothroyd was speaking out of some sort of misguided loyalty to Coppell and his team when he said: "If someone stops you and gives you a present, you don't say 'no', do you?"
Er, well, actually Aidy, when the present's got 'stolen' written on it in large letters, yes, you do.

[Archie's penalty]

Mr Holt has his say - no surprises!

· Reading's players should have stepped in to stop phantom goal farago
By Oliver Holt 24/09/2008
o


Let's be clear about one thing in the furore over the phantom goal awarded to Reading in their 2-2 draw with Watford on Saturday - if one player in Reading's side had any real courage or honesty, it wouldn't have stood.
It's as simple as that. I've heard all the garbage from Reading manager Steve Coppell about how it's not up to the opposition to right a wrong from the officials.
Well, I'm sorry, but when it's as blatant as this, I think it is.
When an injustice is that obvious and that unfathomable, the merest modicum of fair play demands that someone in Reading colours speaks out.
I can only think Watford boss Aidy Boothroyd was speaking out of some sort of misguided loyalty to Coppell and his team when he said: "If someone stops you and gives you a present, you don't say 'no', do you?"
Er, well, actually Aidy, when the present's got 'stolen' written on it in large letters, yes, you do.

Wahay!

[floyd__streete]

Let's be clear about one thing in the furore over the phantom goal awarded to Reading in their 2-2 draw with Watford on Saturday - if one player in Reading's side had any real courage or honesty, it wouldn't have stood.

[dean horrix legend]

Let's be clear about one thing in the furore over the phantom goal awarded to Reading in their 2-2 draw with Watford on Saturday - if one player in Reading's side had any real courage or honesty, it wouldn't have stood.

Made me as well

[West Stand Man]

If Oliver Holt had the courage to think about the situation he wouldn't have written such drivel.

[Archie's penalty]

If Oliver Holt had the courage to think about the situation he wouldn't have written such drivel.

At least someone still cares about us