League says no to Watford replay

God · 09-22-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

The Football League has said there is no chance that Saturday's game between Watford and Reading will be replayed.

Assistant referee Nigel Bannister mistakenly awarded Reading's first goal in the 2-2 draw after the ball had gone wide of the post.

Royals boss Steve Coppell said he would not object to a replay but Watford said they were not seeking another game.

The League's chief operating officer Andy Williamson confirmed the decision to award the goal was final.

"The laws of the game give no discretion in these matters," said Williamson. "The referee's decision regarding whether a goal is scored or not is final and binding.

"Given this explicit position, the League cannot intervene."

The 'goal' was registered as an own goal by Watford's John Eustace.

He thought his side had been given a goal-kick after a corner had hit him and gone out of play before being hooked back in by Reading's Noel Hunt.

Assistant referee Bannister advised referee Stuart Atwell to give the goal, to the horror of the Watford players.

The linesman has decided it's a goal. I've asked him about it and he said it was an optical illusion

Watford boss Aidy Boothroyd
Before the League made their statement, Coppell had said: "We don't want to be seen to be taking advantage of anything. I have sympathy with Watford and I really don't know what to say to make it right."

However, Royals keeper Marcus Hahnemann had told BBC Radio 5 Live that he believed replaying the game would set a dangerous precedent.

For their part Watford said they wanted to know if the yellow cards given to their players in the row following the decision to give the goal would stand.

The Professional Game Match Officials Board (PGMOB) released a statement after reviewing the incident.

"It is clear that the ball did not cross the goal-line between the goalposts," it said.

"According to the Laws of the Game, the decision of the referee, regarding facts connected with play are final and that includes whether a goal is scored or not.

"The referee cannot change that decision once the game has been restarted.

"Football is a human game played at a fast pace where mistakes are made by players and match officials alike.

"We regret this error of judgement and will now work with the officials concerned to determine how this occurred in an attempt to minimise such mistakes in the future."

Former Premier League referee Graham Poll said the decision was inexplicable and had sympathy for the Watford players and manager, Aidy Boothroyd, who was sent to the stands after remonstrating with the officials.

Poll told BBC Radio 5 Live: "This is the most bizarre situation I've ever seen in 40 years watching football and 27 years refereeing.

"I heard about it then watched the highlights thinking 'it can't be how it's described', but it is. He (Bannister) has got a clear view of it. It's completely inexplicable.

"The referee must be respected, obviously, but in such circumstances, as a player, how do you not lose your temper?"

After the match, Boothroyd told BBC London 94.9: "I went to see the referee and in fairness to him, although he wasn't brilliant today, you can't blame him if there's a guy in his ear telling him it's a goal.

"The linesman has decided it's a goal. I've asked him about it and he said it was an optical illusion.

"I saw the ball go out for a goal-kick and my centre-half has put his hand up and asked for the goal-kick and for some strange reason a goal has been given."

Boothroyd rejected the idea that the Reading players should have allowed Watford to score following the error.

"I don't expect players to take things into their own hands. It's not up to them," he added.

"If someone stops you in a car park and gives you a present you don't say no do you?"
Watford's players confront the officials after the controversial goal

Coppell also played down the emphasis on the players to take action.

"The responsibility is not with the opposition to right a wrong. It is up to the officials to get it as right as they can," said Coppell.

Reading winger Stephen Hunt was bemused by the decision but tried to alleviate the blame from referee Atwell.

Hunt said: "It was a screamer! No, it was probably the worst decision I have ever witnessed.

"We can't do anything about it. It's not our mistake, but what can you do? You can't say 'no ref, it wasn't in'.

"He seemed all right. He's a young referee. But after this he'll probably be sitting at home next week.

"I've had him before and he's been all right. It was just a bad day at the office. He talks, he respects you and you respect him.

"I can understand Watford's frustration, but everyone makes mistakes."

Still against Video Replays?

Crocker · 09-22-2008, 05:56 PM

Yes, very much so.

The referees fucked up but sop do players sometimes.

The Phantom · 09-22-2008, 06:04 PM

Yep, I'm still against it too. In rugby they use it for every obvious decision. It's sooooo annoying.

Also, when do they stop play to check if the ball went over or not? Coz the ball doesn't necessarily go 'dead' in that situation.

James Deuce · 09-22-2008, 08:45 PM

Yeah...they would really have to overhaul the rules if they were to add video replay. Or they would have to use it right when the goal/or other situation occurs. It sounds good on paper, but it would just turn into a mess and cause even more problems. Mistakes happen, teams just have to live with the ruling. Besides refs do more things right than wrong, imo. It's just that the rights aren't praised. Just let the game be.

The Half Boy · 09-22-2008, 08:52 PM

The one rule I don't understand never making it across to football from rugby is the injury time thing. In rugby, whenever the referee stops the clock, the actual game clock itself stops. Why can't this happen in football? There'd be no complaining that Man United get 5 minutes injury tie when they're losing at Old Trafford, because everybody would know that when the clock on the scoreboard/tv screen reached 90 mintes, the final whistle would blow.

God · 09-23-2008, 02:29 PM

The slow the game/disrupting play arguement does not hold water. All you have to do is give each manager a number of challenges (Three at the most), it would prevent them being used for every little decision & would take a couple of seconds for the fourth official to look at a replay (We see them seconds after it happens why cant they?) & tell the ref what happened. The ref can then make the correct decision based on the replay.

Its asy & doesnt require any big change to the rules. The players spend longer argueing with the ref than this would take.

The Phantom · 09-23-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Half Boy
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The one rule I don't understand never making it across to football from rugby is the injury time thing. In rugby, whenever the referee stops the clock, the actual game clock itself stops. Why can't this happen in football? There'd be no complaining that Man United get 5 minutes injury tie when they're losing at Old Trafford, because everybody would know that when the clock on the scoreboard/tv screen reached 90 mintes, the final whistle would blow.

That one would be good. The 4th official could be the official time keeper. So all the ref has to do is say in his microphone Time on/time off.

Crocker · 09-23-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The slow the game/disrupting play arguement does not hold water. All you have to do is give each manager a number of challenges (Three at the most),

So stopping the game six times in one game wouldnt slow the game down?

Also some decisions people still cant decide on by video replay, it is a ridiculous in my opinion.

Tyler Durden · 09-24-2008, 04:46 AM

I'm happy to see the game carry on as it is, even with it's personal imperfections.

The basic premise of football is that (pretty much) the same guy you can play down the park is the same game we'll get in a Champions League final....11 against 11, ref, linesmen.....that's it.

As with cricket, once you go down the route of bringing in one piece of technology, it won't stop there, it'll be "oh wait if we can just get something else in then we'll stop mistakes here too" and before you know it we have a game a million miles removed from what we have now.

As for Watford-Reading, clearly a terrible decision. It would have been nice had Reading let Watford equalise to correct it, but hey ho.

League says no to Watford replay

This is a discussion on League says no to Watford replay within the European Sports forums, part of the Sports Forums category; The Football League has said there is no chance that Saturday's game between Watford and Reading will be replayed. Assistant ...