Palace goal wrongly disallowed

[blade 1]

Massive lol @ Warnock. He's spent his managerial career sending out teams which try to win games by niggling and cheating. It's hard not to be drawn to the wise words of Hoddle: Maybe the karma is working from another lifetime.

Absolute rubbish.

He sent out teams that played to their strengths. To say he cheated is uninformed.

really don't see what the argument is to be honest. If City were informed that a foul had been committed then Warnock's lot would have been told this as well. There can be no excuse for teams taking the law into their own hands and allowing the opposition to score when informed of a decision like that. Somebody mentioned earlier that a goal kick had clearly been given and that City players were saying to the referee and linesman it was a goal kick. How does he know? Was he there? Can he lip-read through the side of someone's head? The free kick would probably have been taken like a goal kick anyway.

Quite frankly the way I see it is that City were apparently informed that a foul had been committed and, rightly so imo, played on at 0-0. Both sets of players would have known what the decision was as it is a referee's duty to inform players what has been decided - free kick or goal kick - because the rules for restarting play are different. The referee would have stated a reason for not giving a goal there and then because different infringements carry different restart rules. City were told "foul", therefore free kick. Palace would have known this as well.

In any event, EVERYBODY who watches or plays football will have heard the phrase "the referee's decision is final". We are all taught that this stands whether they are right or wrong. We, quite frankly, cannot end up have situations where "the referee's decision is final (when it suits us)" as imo this would bring the game into farce. It would set a dangerous precedent if, in situations like this, players started taking the laws into their own hands.

But what about if the palace players and staff were informed it was ruled out because it wasn't a goal,because it didn't go in? It works both ways.

Anyway, there's clearly a difference between a dodgy decision (i.e hand ball / penalty decisions) and a cut and dried one like that where the outcome was irrifutable to 99.9% of people in the ground.

[Baines]

Massive lol @ Warnock. He's spent his managerial career sending out teams which try to win games by niggling and cheating. It's hard not to be drawn to the wise words of Hoddle: Maybe the karma is working from another lifetime.

Absolute rubbish.

He sent out teams that played to their strengths. To say he cheated is uninformed.

He sends his out his players to foul. No-one who's watched Warnock's teams over the year would dispute that. And fouling is cheating.

[handbags_harris]

really don't see what the argument is to be honest. If City were informed that a foul had been committed then Warnock's lot would have been told this as well. There can be no excuse for teams taking the law into their own hands and allowing the opposition to score when informed of a decision like that. Somebody mentioned earlier that a goal kick had clearly been given and that City players were saying to the referee and linesman it was a goal kick. How does he know? Was he there? Can he lip-read through the side of someone's head? The free kick would probably have been taken like a goal kick anyway.

Quite frankly the way I see it is that City were apparently informed that a foul had been committed and, rightly so imo, played on at 0-0. Both sets of players would have known what the decision was as it is a referee's duty to inform players what has been decided - free kick or goal kick - because the rules for restarting play are different. The referee would have stated a reason for not giving a goal there and then because different infringements carry different restart rules. City were told "foul", therefore free kick. Palace would have known this as well.

In any event, EVERYBODY who watches or plays football will have heard the phrase "the referee's decision is final". We are all taught that this stands whether they are right or wrong. We, quite frankly, cannot end up have situations where "the referee's decision is final (when it suits us)" as imo this would bring the game into farce. It would set a dangerous precedent if, in situations like this, players started taking the laws into their own hands.

But what about if the palace players and staff were informed it was ruled out because it wasn't a goal,because it didn't go in? It works both ways.

Anyway, there's clearly a difference between a dodgy decision (i.e hand ball / penalty decisions) and a cut and dried one like that where the outcome was irrifutable to 99.9% of people in the ground.

Are you saying the referee deliberately gave both teams a different reason why the goal wasn't given? Neil Warnock hasn't given an informed reason as to why the goal wasn't given, all he's done is bleated to all and sundry who could be bothered to listen at how his team has been hard done by. Gary Johnson has come out and informed all and sundry he was told the goal wasn't given because a free kick had been awarded. I'm not a Warnock basher by any stretch of the imagination, I actually sympathised with him in 2007 when West Ham screwed him over, but this one he has to take this one on the chin like a Wally Downes right hook, accept that the referee made a horrendous error, his team were on the receiving end, and move on. The referee's decision has to be final whatever the reason given. I can't see any justification for a team and their manager to be taking the rules into their own hands on the back of a poor refereeing decision.

[floyd__streete]

Massive lol @ Warnock. He's spent his managerial career sending out teams which try to win games by niggling and cheating. It's hard not to be drawn to the wise words of Hoddle: Maybe the karma is working from another lifetime.

Absolute rubbish.

He sent out teams that played to their strengths. To say he cheated is uninformed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDsjY3u ... re=related


The (in)famous game in which Sheffield United had only 6 men left on the pitch. Three blades were sent off, including two substitutes who had only been on a few seconds. Warnock then insisted that his skipper come off, and a further injury forced the ref to abandon the match (with the score 0-3).

If "Michael should have come off at half-time", then Warnock knew that Brown was injured when he threw on his last two subs. Yet Brown was left on. So Warnock forgot?

Gary Megson gives a wonderful post-match deadpan interview.

[blade 1]

Are you saying the referee deliberately gave both teams a different reason why the goal wasn't given? Neil Warnock hasn't given an informed reason as to why the goal wasn't given, all he's done is bleated to all and sundry who could be bothered to listen at how his team has been hard done by. Gary Johnson has come out and informed all and sundry he was told the goal wasn't given because a free kick had been awarded. I'm not a Warnock basher by any stretch of the imagination, I actually sympathised with him in 2007 when West Ham screwed him over, but this one he has to take this one on the chin like a Wally Downes right hook, accept that the referee made a horrendous error, his team were on the receiving end, and move on. The referee's decision has to be final whatever the reason given. I can't see any justification for a team and their manager to be taking the rules into their own hands on the back of a poor refereeing decision.

Nah, I'm questioning why they had two different sets of facts. Surely the ref must have told the players on the pitch what his decision was. His subsequent suspension suggests that he did just disallow the goal because it didn't go in. I have no idea of the actual truth behind the matter, only Gary Johnson knows that and i may be doing him an injustice.

In terms of the refs decision, I have seen it before where a team have let the other side cancel the error out in an act of fair play. Maybe cheat is too harsh a word, maybe un-gentlemanly is more appropriate.

The (in)famous game in which Sheffield United had only 6 men left on the pitch. Three blades were sent off, including two substitutes who had only been on a few seconds. Warnock then insisted that his skipper come off, and a further injury forced the ref to abandon the match (with the score 0-3).

If "Michael should have come off at half-time", then Warnock knew that Brown was injured when he threw on his last two subs. Yet Brown was left on. So Warnock forgot?

Gary Megson gives a wonderful post-match deadpan interview.

This is probably the same as my view point on the other incident. People only know half the story.

Yes, Warnock should not have put Santos on, he went straight for the west brom player who had turned his face to mush and nearly blinded him previously.

But you cant blame him for either of the other sendings off, one was a keeper handball, the other player acted like a pr!ck and head butted someone.

And as for the "deliberately" calling players off the pitch. The players that came off were out for months afterwards, one having an operation on his so called "fake injury"

And Brown was head and shoulders above anyone else on the side, of course he was going to stay on if we were chasing the game. To suggest that warnock knew he would subsequently have to call the game off (and have a player handily injured on the pitch for such an event) is silly and suggests he sent on two players to deliberately get sent off.

Of course he didn't.

[handbags_harris]

Are you saying the referee deliberately gave both teams a different reason why the goal wasn't given? Neil Warnock hasn't given an informed reason as to why the goal wasn't given, all he's done is bleated to all and sundry who could be bothered to listen at how his team has been hard done by. Gary Johnson has come out and informed all and sundry he was told the goal wasn't given because a free kick had been awarded. I'm not a Warnock basher by any stretch of the imagination, I actually sympathised with him in 2007 when West Ham screwed him over, but this one he has to take this one on the chin like a Wally Downes right hook, accept that the referee made a horrendous error, his team were on the receiving end, and move on. The referee's decision has to be final whatever the reason given. I can't see any justification for a team and their manager to be taking the rules into their own hands on the back of a poor refereeing decision.

Nah, I'm questioning why they had two different sets of facts. Surely the ref must have told the players on the pitch what his decision was. His subsequent suspension suggests that he did just disallow the goal because it didn't go in. I have no idea of the actual truth behind the matter, only Gary Johnson knows that and i may be doing him an injustice.

In terms of the refs decision, I have seen it before where a team have let the other side cancel the error out in an act of fair play. Maybe cheat is too harsh a word, maybe un-gentlemanly is more appropriate.

A differing set of facts between Gary Johnson, one of the most respectful managers in the game, and Neil Warnock, who needs no introduction. I know who I'll listen to with more respect to be honest. It's clear that Palace were hard done by, but they have to take refereeing decisions on the chin whether right or wrong. I refer to my previous point about it being drummed into kids that "the referee is always right".

With regards the error cancellation, give some examples in high level football (ie Conference and above).

[blade 1]

De rossi Scored with his hand by accident. The ref didn't see it but he said he had handballed it and the ref subsequently disallowed the goal.

The team letting the other side score happened in a reserve team game which i'll grant is not exactly top level pressure.

Arsenal agreed to a replay with sheff u after Kanu took a throwing and ran down the pitch for overmars to score after we had put the ball out of play for an injury. (Fair play to wenger for that although i don't quite believe that similar principals weren't in play in the Italian league and that giving the ball back after an opponent puts it out was lost in translation)

I'm not suggesting we even out every bad decision and that morally you have call a foul on your self like snooker. But it does show the game can be played in the right way.

[sheshnu]

Arsenal agreed to a replay with sheff u after Kanu took a throwing and ran down the pitch for overmars to score after we had put the ball out of play for an injury. (Fair play to wenger for that although i don't quite believe that similar principals weren't in play in the Italian league and that giving the ball back after an opponent puts it out was lost in translation)

What was the score in the replay?

I remember when Johnson himself was in charge of Yeovil, the opposition scored from a drop-ball or something so they allowed Yeovil to walk up the other end and score a free goal. Or maybe it was the other way around, I dunno.

[TBM]

Arsenal agreed to a replay with sheff u after Kanu took a throwing and ran down the pitch for overmars to score after we had put the ball out of play for an injury. (Fair play to wenger for that although i don't quite believe that similar principals weren't in play in the Italian league and that giving the ball back after an opponent puts it out was lost in translation)

What was the score in the replay?

I remember when Johnson himself was in charge of Yeovil, the opposition scored from a drop-ball or something so they allowed Yeovil to walk up the other end and score a free goal. Or maybe it was the other way around, I dunno.

It was 2-1 again.....Steve Bruce was manager of Sheff Utd

As for the Yeovil situation, it was the other way round, they were playing Plymouth - drop ball (as you say) went straight over the keepers head.......that made it 1-0, Plymouth then walked the ball into the net from kick off. Ironically in that game, Lee Johnson who scored the drop ball went on and grabbed a hattrick and won the game 3-2 for Yeovil

[Barry the bird boggler]

Just tough. It's called human error, it happens, it's part of the game. Get on with it.

[tomrfcurz]

jordan on SSN, what a n0b, saying he hates brizzle anyway, what the hell

[Hoop Blah]

The game was re started with a goal kick, all this talk of a free kick being awaded is Just bollocks.

Both sets of players would have known what the decision was as it is a referee's duty to inform players what has been decided - free kick or goal kick - because the rules for restarting play are different. The referee would have stated a reason for not giving a goal there and then because different infringements carry different restart rules. City were told "foul", therefore free kick. Palace would have known this as well.

Just one point on these two posts. The laws aren't different for a foul in the penalty area and a goal kick as the defending team can take the free kick awarded for any foul in their area from any point within the area.

That often leads to keepers taking the free kick as if it were a goal kick because that's what they're comfortable with. It also means you can take it from the edge of the box if you can't kick it that far and the extra 12 yards gives you a bit of a boost.

[Smoking Kills Dancing Doe]

Jordan's gone quiet today hasn't he?

Wonder if it's got anything to do with the £250k Palace owe Bristol City?

[Barry the bird boggler]

I like Bristol City

I don't like Crystal Palace

so CrystaLOL PaLOLace

[UTDSTEVE]

The game was re started with a goal kick, all this talk of a free kick being awaded is Just bollocks.

Both sets of players would have known what the decision was as it is a referee's duty to inform players what has been decided - free kick or goal kick - because the rules for restarting play are different. The referee would have stated a reason for not giving a goal there and then because different infringements carry different restart rules. City were told "foul", therefore free kick. Palace would have known this as well.

Just one point on these two posts. The laws aren't different for a foul in the penalty area and a goal kick as the defending team can take the free kick awarded for any foul in their area from any point within the area.

That often leads to keepers taking the free kick as if it were a goal kick because that's what they're comfortable with. It also means you can take it from the edge of the box if you can't kick it that far and the extra 12 yards gives you a bit of a boost.[/quote

The simple fact is that if the ref gave a free kick for an infringment before the ball went into the net then nobody would be having this discussion and the ref would certainly not have apologised to palace.

[Hoop Blah]

The simple fact is that if the ref gave a free kick for an infringment before the ball went into the net then nobody would be having this discussion and the ref would certainly not have apologised to palace.

Probably...but then that's nothing to do with my pointing out that the laws mean you didn't know what you were talking about re the goal kick.

Unless the ref has Superman like reflexes how was he supposed to award a free kick on the say so of his linesman before the ball hit the back of the net?

I don't doubt this was a complete cock up by the ref by the way, it's just you're justification of it isn't quite as watertight as you seem to think.