Bristol City- Guilty or Not Guilty?

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Brighton played 2 leaugue games and 1 league cup game goals total for the season to date 0, Best of luck with your quest to even find the back of the net!!!!

Err as I said earlier we had a NAILED ON goal disallowed on Saturday!!!

Brentford cheating ***** they thought we had scored. Their body language reeked of it!

 

[Croydonbloke]

Err as I said earlier we had a NAILED ON goal disallowed on Saturday!!!

Brentford cheating ***** they thought we had scored. Their body language reeked of it!

Sorry its not all over the newspapers don't believe you!!!!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Brighton played 2 leaugue games and 1 league cup game goals total for the season to date 0, Best of luck with your quest to even find the back of the net!!!!

If you've come on here looking for sympathy, you're in the wrong place. We LOVE it

My favourite thing about it is the photo below. One bad decision and Neil Warnock's inner six-year old comes out:

Genius

 

[Easy 10]

Haven't you read the Football Association Laws Of The Game (Warnock Amendment 2009)?

Rule 172 (3)(ii) para.4.2 states that:
-a goal shall be awarded to the attacking team if, in the opinion of the referee, any or all of the defending players are visibly avoiding eye contact and looking sheepishly skywards with their hands in their pockets, while whistling a jaunty tune

I must have missed that one. I did see an earlier amendment though:

Rule 172 (3)(i) para 4.1 which states:

- a goal shall be awarded to the attacking team if the crowd supporting the defending team suddenly falls silent, in apparent realisation that the ball has fully entered the defending teams net. It is to be assumed by the referee that a goal has been scored.

Rule 172 (3)(ib) sub-para 4.1 (i)

- this rule shall be null and void in the case of any match refereed at the Withdean Stadium involving Brighton and Hove Albion, as the deafening silence throughout each match cannot simply be attributed to an opposition goal being scored. This is just the natural state of things there.

 

[SJ's Love Monkey]

So what makes Brentford players cheats and not Bristol City's? Just curious

 

[SJ's Love Monkey]

If you've come on here looking for sympathy, you're in the wrong place. We LOVE it

My favourite thing about it is the photo below. One bad decision and Neil Warnock's inner six-year old comes out:

Genius

Tut tut a lady of the law as well. Sums you lot up in my opinion!

 

[Lady Whistledown]

So what makes Brentford players cheats and not Bristol City's? Just curious

 

[sten_super]

So what makes Brentford players cheats and not Bristol City's? Just curious

I think it's called humour. You might want to check it out sometime

I have some sympathy with Palace, but at the same time Warnock and Tango Man's tirades don't do themselves any favours. There are loads of wrong decisions made at football matches; if you start offering replays or own goals for them, where do you draw the line? When does a wrong offside decision become so obvious that it has to be recompensed with a goal? How do you judge when a penalty decision is wrong enough to demand an own goal be scored?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I must have missed that one. I did see an earlier amendment though:

Rule 172 (3)(i) para 4.1 which states:

- a goal shall be awarded to the attacking team if the crowd supporting the defending team suddenly falls silent, in apparent realisation that the ball has fully entered the defending teams net. It is to be assumed by the referee that a goal has been scored.

Rule 172 (3)(ib) sub-para 4.1 (i)

- this rule shall be null and void in the case of any match refereed at the Withdean Stadium involving Brighton and Hove Albion, as the deafening silence throughout each match cannot simply be attributed to an opposition goal being scored. This is just the natural state of things there.

Just discovered another little-known rule, while we're on the subject.

Rule 627 (1)(iv) para 1.2
If, in the opinion of the referee, an attacking (home) team looks unlikely to score a goal in a game against their local(ish) rivals, it shall be at his discretion to award a series of penalties to that side as he deems necessary in order to secure their victory. Should the attacking (home) side repeatedly miss a penalty, further penalties shall be awarded to them at their request until such time as one is scored satisfactorily, or to a maximum of four, whichever is the sooner. It is not necessary for an infringement to have been committed by the defending side in order for the penalties to be awarded. NB: this shall be offset by the award of a token consolation penalty to the defending (away) side, once the result is effectively confirmed in favour of the home team.

 

[Storer68]

Eh? I think keaton's point was that the referee simply didn't see the goal; he thought that Sears put it wide, hit the stantion and came back into play again, therefore awarding the goal kick.

He couldn't have thought that Sears had put the ball wide of the post as the ball clearly rebounds back into the penalty area. If it had gone the other side of the post it would have hit the advertising boad and rebounded back on to the running track. The one way it could not have travelled was back where it had come from, which is what it did..

and he doesn't award a goal kick but an indirect free kick

Decisions of the Referee
The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including
whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.

The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth offi cial, provided
that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.



LAW 10 – THE METHOD OF SCORING
Goal Scored
A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between
the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the
Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the
goal.

 

[Left Footer]

Guilty as hell,how the ref didn`t see that go in when everybody else on the pitch did and the City players were heads down and getting ready to kick off is beyond me.
If it wasn`t Palace i think the precentage for guilty would be far higher.
And of course City had to rub it in with a late winner.
Never mind,shit happens.

 

[sten_super]

He couldn't have thought that Sears had put the ball wide of the post as the ball clearly rebounds back into the penalty area. If it had gone the other side of the post it would have hit the advertising boad and rebounded back on to the running track. The one way it could not have travelled was back where it had come from, which is what it did..

and he doesn't award a goal kick but an indirect free kick

Decisions of the Referee
The decisions of the referee regarding facts connected with play, including
whether or not a goal is scored and the result of the match, are final.

The referee may only change a decision on realising that it is incorrect or, at his discretion, on the advice of an assistant referee or the fourth offi cial, provided
that he has not restarted play or terminated the match.



LAW 10 – THE METHOD OF SCORING
Goal Scored
A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between
the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the
Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the
goal.

So you are saying that he knew it had gone in, and in fact gave a free kick? In that case, what's all the hoo-haa about then?

 

[clapham_gull]

Of course it isn't cheating, this is Palace after all.

How anyone can feel in the least bit sympathetic to their situation on here is an utter utter disgrace.

The poll is a measure of how much you love the Albion and a few on here need to have a good hard look at themselves.

Shocking.

 

[Easy 10]

Look, this is all very unfair. We can't really blame the ref or lino here can we.

I mean christ, I would have had HUGE difficulty in believing that Freddie Sears had actually gone and scored a goal. The obvious and natural assumption was that his shot had gone wide and bounced back off the advertising hoardings. FAR more plausible than Sears hitting the back of the net.

Can't BELIEVE the ref has been suspended over this.

 

[jimmypbha]

To be honest it has nothing to do with the club, just unlucky. ( )

 

[SJ's Love Monkey]

I think it's called humour. You might want to check it out sometime

I have some sympathy with Palace, but at the same time Warnock and Tango Man's tirades don't do themselves any favours. There are loads of wrong decisions made at football matches; if you start offering replays or own goals for them, where do you draw the line? When does a wrong offside decision become so obvious that it has to be recompensed with a goal? How do you judge when a penalty decision is wrong enough to demand an own goal be scored?

Mate i find the whole thing highly amusing as it happens, amusing that the ref was right behind the play yet runs to his linesman 40 yards away and asks was it a goal! Amusing that Warnock even though had a right to be angry actually thought Bristol City players and management were going to turn round and say yeah fair play Neil we will score an own goal because we feel bad! That's the killer for me!

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I dont think you can blame the Bristol Players, the fault lays with the ref.

 

[Acker79]

So what makes Brentford players cheats and not Bristol City's? Just curious

Bristol city took no action to decieve the ref, they just took advantage of his mistake. Brentford's keeper feigned injury to convince the ref he had been fouled when he hadn't, thus encouraging the ref's mistake.



When I played for a sunday kids team I was in goal and the ball was played in from the corner went out of play and through the side net. I picked it up and placed it for a goal kick to look up and see the ref had given a goal.

What made it worse was the ref was the dad of one of the kids in our team.

 

[The Wizard]

The ball quite clearly didn't cross the line anyway.

 

[Danny-Boy]

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 must agree with this assessment; many years ago Palace had a "goal" awarded at Selhurst against another side, when I think we were in the old first division about 1970. The shot smacked against the outside of the stanchion and rebounded out. The oppo were horrified and surrounded the ref who asked one of the Palace players (Steve Kember I think) if it had gone in.

Kember admitted it hadn't and the goal was ruled out.