One of the talking points in English football this weekend was Crystal Palace’s disallowed goal against Bristol City. Whilst I would not normally take the time out to write an appraisal of the pros and cons of using touchline technology in football, this time was particularly controversial, because on this occasion it was my team that suffered.
In case you missed it this was not a case of the ball going slightly over the line, but of the ball actually hitting the back of the net. More precisely, when Freddie Sears volleyed the ball past the Bristol City goalkeeper it hit the stanchion holding the net in place and ricocheted back out of the goal instantly, thereby causing confusion. Footage of the ‘goal’ can be seen here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_1/8204164.stm.
To add salt to the wounds Bristol City scored a winner in the 89th minute leaving everyone involved with Crystal Palace feeling pretty glum. On the upside however we found ourselves with a brilliant excuse as to why we lost. Such a distraction has been seized upon by the usually reserved Palace manager Neil Warnock and equally shy chairman Simon Jordan. Unfortunately the manner in which they have gone about their complaints has not been particularly dignified, nor has it always been well-aimed.
Certainly errors were made during the game. Firstly was the fact that four officials missed an incident that was blindingly obvious to everyone else. Secondly, and perhaps the biggest mistake by the referee and his assistants, was their failure to look at the player and fan reactions and use a bit of common sense. Sears and the Palace players wheeled away to the corner flag in celebration, whilst the Bristol City players and fans were obviously dejected. Do they really believe that a player would hit the post, or indeed put the ball wide, and then pretend to have scored? It seems incredible to think that this was the conclusion they may have come to.
Warnock was right in saying that the referee had not meant to get the decision wrong, but then somewhat foolishly turned on Bristol City. Feeling he had gone a little too long without making enemies he claimed that Gary Johnson and his players had “cheated” and “could have shown more sportsmanship because they knew it was a goal”. Whilst the Bristol players knew that it was a goal, it takes a very courageous person to admit such to the referee and volunteer to concede a goal when the scores were tied. For one thing they would incur the wrath of the home fans. It reminded me of the incident in a Manchester United and Tottenham match of a few years ago when Roy Carroll dropped the ball into his own net before scooping it out and pretending it hadn’t crossed the line. It may be bad-sportsmanship, but officials are there to decide what is right and what is wrong. Warnock was rightly frustrated, but he picked the wrong fight.
The main culprit in this case, as far as I can see it, is UEFA itself. They are the only organisation with the power to implement the type of goal line technology that is long overdue. This is an old and oft-mentioned argument, but if they can have touch-judges in rugby, and third-umpires in cricket, why on earth can’t something be done about football? Possibly it has something to do with the communist football organisation wanting to have everything uniform in the game of football. It would definitely cost a lot to implement such systems in every league in the world. Football however is the most lucrative sport on the planet, and it needs to keep up with the times. Surely it wouldn’t hurt to start introducing trial systems in certain leagues?
The fact of the matter is that goals are the most important aspect of football, and if they can’t be judged correctly then football can’t be conducted correctly. I’ve yet to hear anyone in England put forward an argument against touchline technology, and it seems somewhat hilarious the amount of times the same arguments are versed each season. Famously last season a goal was given in the Watford versus Reading match that hadn’t gone anywhere near crossing the line. Such goals change matches. In any case, if goal-line technology is yet to be introduced, why on earth is there a law that states that the fourth official cannot view a replay of events and then make the correct decision? It all seems a case of bureaucracy gone mad. In the meantime the referee in question, Rob Shoebridge, has been suspended and thus made the scapegoat until the next inevitable incident. Oh, and Crystal Palace have been offered an apology for his mistakes. It is not an apology that we, nor any other football fan, would want however. Something has to be done to prevent, or at least lessen, the number of these incidences that occur.
No comments:
Post a Comment