Bristol City- Guilty or Not Guilty?

[WhingForPresident]

So there's a bit of an uproar over this Palarse disallowed goal.
All the pundits on Goals on Sunday claiming Bristol City are a disgrace and should have whacked one in their own net.
Gary Johnson and the City chairman claiming they thought there was an infringement beforehand.
Let's take the fact it was an amazing decision against Palarse out of the equation.

*EDIT- Not Guilty- The referee has made the decision that it wasn't a goal after all.

 

[Mackenzie]

Shit happens.

 

[bhaexpress]

Fact is if the Palace goal had been allowed it would have cost City players part of their bonus so I can hardly blame them. It was a very bad decision but every team (except Manure) gets them.

 

[lighthouse]

Play to the whistle

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I think we need to forget the fact it happened to Palace, firstly.

In my opinion, they're not guilty. They perhaps should have run it into their own net because it was a good goal. But they're only morally obliged to, not legally. The referee made the decision, and that's that. If they wanted to make the show of sportsmanship and respect to the game, they could have. But it would have been their choice, it wasn't a requirement and the fact they didn't is fine. This is professional league football, you take what you get. No question Bristol City will be robbed of something at some point this season, and Palace will get something they shouldn't as well. As the above poster mentioned, "shit happens".

It's team discretion in this case in my opinion.

 

[dougdeep]

Whatever.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

 

[Gully]

For those who haven't seen it already...click and enjoy!

YouTube - The Goal That Never Was

 

[shoreham moonraker]

guilty, but what do you expect from low life slave trading scum.

 

[strings]

Didn't Bristol have a goal disallowed for an incorrectly called offside... it seems that things probably evened themself out over the course of the match.

[Edit] Warnock makes a valid point about goalline technology. It is instant and wouldn't stop the flow of the game (a tone sounds in the referee/linesman's ear as soon as the ball crosses the line). I am against 'hawkeye' technology or rugby style replays, but surely there is a valid case for goalline technology.

 

[Austin "Forster" Powers]

What would Palace players and especially Warnock (very sporting chap that he is) done if the situation was reversed ?

 

[itszamora]

What would Palace players and especially Warnock (very sporting chap that he is) done if the situation was reversed ?

Encouraged his players to deliberately try to get sent off? Oh no sorry, that was when he was in charge of Sheff Utd.

 

[ali jenkins]

Did Reading walk the ball into their own net when they scored that 'phantom' goal?

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Did Reading walk the ball into their own net when they scored that 'phantom' goal?

Nope, and for me, that was cheating. They knew the ball hadn't crossed the line, so to me, that is completely different and I would have voted guilty on that. They should have said, hang on, there's no way we can accept that because the ball went wide. But they didn't, they rather smugly thought f*** it, 1-0 up.

The difference is that Palace's goal was fair and legal, so Bristol City had the decision to make. The decided not to let Palace score to make up for it, which in my opinion (as I posted earlier) is fine because it was their choice. But Reading didn't score a valid goal, it was a complete mistake by the officials and they should have owned up to it.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

This is some of what Johnson said:

"We knew the ball had gone into the net but we got word that the ref said there was an infringement so there is nothing more we can do."

So they played to the rules of the game which say that you a) play to the whistle and b) that the officials decision is final - so how is that cheating then?

So if the officials say that there was an infringment how are the players to know what he supposedly spotted, are they supposed to say "no its a goal, only to see on a replay that there was an infringment and it should have been ruled out? then what, talk of replays or moaning cos Palace didn't then walk the ball into their net afterwards, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Bristol City and Gary Johnson are a total disgrace. This is some of what Johnson said:

"We knew the ball had gone into the net but we got word that the ref said there was an infringement so there is nothing more we can do."

What a dickhead. He KNEW the ball had gone in, but it didn't cross his mind that his team should allow Palace to score a goal - despite this being common practice in situations such as this. Cheating wanker.

Example? I think it's fair to say "common practice" is the wrong phrase.

The only time I can remember ANY team being sporting and letting the opposition walk the ball in was, funnily enough, a Gary Johnson team. I don't remember what happened, but something did and he told his Yeovil side to let the opposition walk it into the net. History suggests Johnson is a sporting bloke.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Didn't Bristol have a goal disallowed for an incorrectly called offside... it seems that things probably evened themself out over the course of the match.

[Edit] Warnock makes a valid point about goalline technology. It is instant and wouldn't stop the flow of the game (a tone sounds in the referee/linesman's ear as soon as the ball crosses the line). I am against 'hawkeye' technology or rugby style replays, but surely there is a valid case for goalline technology.

Yes they did

I'm unconvinced by the call for goal line technology, firstly how would it work
a) cameras in the goal? - could be obscured by bodies of players and miss whether it crossed or not
b) sensor within the ball/ posts to track whether it crossed? - again signal could be blocked, or break during play, it could affect the ball in terms of flight etc,
c) It makes the game too dull - If all controversial decisions are removed from the game by technology, it means that you lose alot of the appeal because you lose the debate about was it a goal or not, was it offside etc etc which makes it too much of a packaged commercial article rather than entertainment

 

[Acker79]

I have a strong recollection of someone (player or manager for reading) claiming the ref had said if they deliberately put the ball in their own net he wouldn't allow it, and would book them for unsporting behaviour or something like that (morally it is the right thing to do, but deliberately putting the ball in your own net goes against the idea of wanting to win).