Bristol City- Guilty or Not Guilty?

[Lady Whistledown]

The simple answer is that they are all professional footballers, and would all do exactly the same in the circumstances.

Clearly it was an error by the officials, but is Simon Jordan seriously trying to convince the world that if the situation were reversed, Palace's defenders (whoever they are these days) would have stood there and said "Ahoy there referee sir, I do believe you have made a teensy faux pas, please award a goal to Bristol City immediately"?

Shit happens in football, you deal with it, you move on. And as it happens, this is one of the most amusing refereeing errors I've ever seen, principally of course because Palace are the victims. They'll get their share of crap decisions in their favour this season, therefore Warnock should wind his neck in and concentrate on his next game.

Personally, I think the referee deserves an award for services to football. I'd certainly buy the bloke a drink if I met him in future

Edits: having looked at the footage, Palace quite clearly have at least three players surrounding the referee in an intimidating manner, therefore under this season's new rules, they should also be charged with failing to control their players

 

[Guy Fawkes]

For me, there has to be a MORAL obligation. Bristol City know the ball went in the goal, and judging by Palace's/Neil Warnock's reaction immediately after the incident they knew the goal was ruled out because the officials didn't see it go in. Of course the officials decision is final, and I don't blame them because it was an honest mistake, but Bristol knew what had happened and they cheated to benefit from that. Noone will agree because it's Palace, but if that happened to us I'd be LIVID.

So which examples are those that the opposition should morally correct - should they:
- let a team score if a goal is ruled out cos the officials missed it?
- let a team score if a goal was wrongly ruled out for off side
- if a goal was scored despite the attacking team playing on when there was a bad foul / injury in the build up, should they then let the opposition score?
- let the opposition score if they scored from a wrongly awarded set piece
and so on...

It's easy to say they should here but it opens up the can of worms that is where is the borderline between what is acceptable, ans what teams should then try to correct themselves

The truth is that the officials are paid to make these decisions, they may not always get it right, but that is part and parcel of the game. Sometimes decisions go for you (in Bristol City's case here the goal was not given) and against you (again Bristol City's goal ruled out for offside when it wasn't)

Wouldn't football be boring if every decision was clear cut and correct?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The truth is that the officials are paid to make these decisions, they may not always get it right, but that is part and parcel of the game. Sometimes decisions go for you (in Bristol City's case here the goal was not given) and against you (again Bristol City's goal ruled out for offside when it wasn't)

Wouldn't football be boring if every decision was clear cut and correct?

Exactement, what would we have to talk about? What people like Neil Warnock (who, as a qualified referee, should know better) fail to mention is that players make mistakes, managers make mistakes, yet I don't see anyone suggesting they get banned for a year, like he seems to be suggesting the officials from yesterday should be.

Palace had 89 other minutes in that game to score a proper goal, and they failed, suggesting that their strikers also made mistakes. Does Freddy Sears get banned now as a result? I see they also conceded a late winner- should Palace's keeper be suspended for that?

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

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.

I agree totally. Bristol City haven't got a leg to stand on. Of course they knew. It was cheating. But this is 2009 and the game has lomg been morally bankrupt.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Yep, but it was disallowed, hence they had 89 other minutes to score one, and didn't.

Bit like us yesterday. We had a goal disallowed too, I believe.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The referee makes the decision , whether they're right or wrong is another matter.

 

[Spicy]

I am enjoying the controversy - I work with Palace fans and will make a good deal of mileage out of this. I think Warnock is totally over reacting and it happens to all teams.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I think everyone is missing the point entirely here. Let's not waste time moralising about it. Palace were on the end of a complete wrong'un.

Therefore all that matters is that it was

HILARIOUS

 

[Guy Fawkes]

All those things are open to interpretation though. Every refereee/linesman may make a different call on fouls/offsides depending on the circumstances and what they see. The ball physically going in the net is a FACT. You can't argue with that.

But the refs opinion was that it wasn't a goal, the linesmans opinion was that it wasn't a goal, therefore as that is also open to circumstances and what they can see it is therefore also open to interpretation

to say that it should stand just because it went into the net is ridiculous, the officials may have spotted an infringment justifying ruling it out, something that wasn't spotted by the cameras and therefore the correct decision but to then claim Bristol City are cheats and morally they should have let Palace score straight afterwards to correct the mistake that wasn't


Who decides what is a valid goal and what isn't for the players to correct themselves? an official from one of the teams with a bias view, or a matchday official who is capable of mistakes (as seen by this example)

Palaces goal could have counted and they then conceeded a couple and lost, or it gets ruled out and they went on to win so this decision wasn't the only thing in the game that resulted in this goal, as already said, they had plenty of time to score a winner but didn't. Would there be this fuss if they had gone on to win 6-0 despite this goal being ruled out? or losing 6-0 and this incident came at the end of the match and would have been a consolation

 

[NMH]

I think everyone is missing the point entirely here. Let's not waste time moralising about it. Palace were on the end of a complete wrong'un.

Therefore all that matters is that it was

HILARIOUS

Edna have speaked wisely.

 

[Billy Mays]

I just listened to the interview with Colin Wanker and I think there is a bigger question here which is..... why does Colin feel that the fact that he is "60 years of age" is relevant?

The problem with taking the moral high ground like he's done here is that at some point this season they will get the benefit of an incorrect decision and when they do he'll have to bang on about how their win was unjust and the game should be replayed. It's not like it's even going to matter in the scheme of things. What are we talking here? One lost point being the difference between finishing 14th and 15th?

Of course the fact that it was Palace might be clouding my view on this issue slightly!!

 

[Everest]

Goals are being given and goals are being disallowed WRONGLY every single week. Where will all this end? Will matches start being won/lost on how many intentional own-goals are scored? Will these own-goals count as double depending on the severity of the cock-up of the officials?

As nana says, "what a load of shit". It's life, shit happens.

Mind you, it couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke. As itszamora brought up, Warcock is no angel.

I reserve the right to change my tune if it happened to us.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I'd quite like you to justify that sentence!!!

Anyway, we know the goal was ruled out because the ref didn't see it go in, so forget talk of a foul in the build-up. In my opinion, this is the one time a team has to own up and admit the truth, even if if goes against them. The fact Palace scored a legitimate goal and it didn't stand, and that the opposition did nothing to correct it, is bad for football and says a lot about the "win at all costs" approach most managers have. As I said, if it went against the albion I guarantee you wouldn't be saying this.

Simple - it wasn't given by the officials, they decide what counts and what doesn't - It should have been a goal (if there was no foul in the build up and it was not given just because the linesman and ref both missed it) but unless they award the goal it wasn't one.

What happens when the ball went into the net but a goal isn't givenin other circumstances,ie, due to a wrong offside decision, or foul that wasn't etc etc, does this also mean that the opposition should let them score anyway or they are cheats too or don't those examples matter as much and therefore should be ignored?

 

[NMH]

Goals are being given and goals are being disallowed WRONGLY every single week. Where will all this end? Will matches start being won/lost on how many intentional own-goals are scored? Will these own-goals count as double depending on the severity of the cock-up of the officials?

As nana says, "what a load of shit". It's life, shit happens.

Mind you, it couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke. As itszamora brought up, Warcock is no angel.

I reserve the right to change my tune if it happened to us.

What makes it special is that it ought to have stood as a proper goal, but doesn't.

Yes, wrong offside decisions often make just as much difference to a game and result, and let's not forget penalty awards! (thinking back to the 5-pen match)

 

[ATFC Seagull]

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.

I have read that several times, and I am now convinved it makes no sense at all.

 

[Everest]

What makes it special is that it ought to have stood as a proper goal, but doesn't.

It's just as special as ALL the others that are disallowed WRONGLY for ANY reason.