I see you devoted a thread on your board to this ref Thai, doing your best to get others to say the goal should have stood, bit sad but good to see most disagreed with you. You are happy enough to say the ref didn't follow the rules because it justifies what you say, that the goal should have stood. Why do you ignore the fact that the ref actually followed the rule to the letter, thereby stopping your lowdown cheating excuse of a player the satisfaction of gaining an ill-gotten 3 points. He just invoked the fact that a game is restarted by the blowing of the refs whistle. You can't have it both ways, you can't say it was a goal because it was in the rules, and then dismiss the fact that the ref didn't blow the whistlle. The ref's ruling is final on the pitch, and thats is the rules.
You need to have a closer read of the rules of the game if you believe what you are saying. The referee DID get it wrong, and I ask you to talk to any qualified referee to confirm this......The ref does not need to blow the whistle for a throw in - it is not mandatory (Indeed, it is incredibly rare that it is even done - if ever, and to do so was a cop out). What he did do though, was to wave the game to re-start, and having done that, reversed the decision. What I am not certain about, is when he reversed the decision. If it was done after the ball went in the net and he ruled it as no-goal, for no other reason than a foul throw, then he got it wrong. What he should have done, was allow the goal to stand, then Norwich let Cardiff score for parity, and to not play by the rules of the game. In not doing that, he has left himself exposed to scrutiny over his decision making, in a pressure situation. As a side note - why do you think the referee left the ground as soon as was humanly possible, other than to not face questions about his error?
SBFF - I have saved you the time and bother When should the referee blow the whistle? - There are three instances when the whistle should be blown. 1. To stop play: During active play if the referee blows the whistle it always means STOP, the ball is dead. 2. To restart play: Always to be blown for the start of the half or quarter, at other times only if you have told the player to wait for you to blow it. - Which he did not do. 3. To draw attention to yourself during a dead ball situation. Now tell me again that the ref got it right........He clearly got it wrong - however, as you say, 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 official, provided that he has not restarted play or terminated the match. The fact remains, he restarted the game, lawfully, by waving the ball back in to play. It was then he realised he had got it wrong, and nearly sparked off a riot among the Cardiff players, and rightly so, and for him to try and use the 'whistle' playing any part of the proceedings was wrong, and he knows it. Ergo, as I said on our thread, on the Norwich board, he has placed himself in a questionable position, to an extent, by his action during and after the game.
I think you will find that the stopping and starting of the game is by the whistle. But that wasn't the point I was making, it wasn't about the ref, or the game, it was you trying to get all and sundry to agree that the goal should have stood that left a bitter taste in my mouth. Was he wrong in to not allow the goal, probably, he took a way out, no doubt, although judging from your teams standards I doubt we would have been allowed to walk one into your net. In another game sometime in the future, one of your players will be down and you lot will be screaming for the ball to be put out, but maybe after this other teams won't put the ball out for you.
This should make you feel better though Thai, some justice for you not winning the game by an ill gotten goal. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...rongly-ruling-Leroy-Fers-unsporting-goal.html
Thai - Mike Jones obviously used his initiative. Whether he was wrong to the letter of the law is questionable I agree. The fact that he did disallow the goal to keep the two sides on parity was a common sense decision in the interests of the game. There was absolutely no guarantee that your guys would allow us to walk one in and the suggestion has been made that they hadn't agreed that at all. It also defused a tense situation that could have escalated into something far more serious for the authorities to have to deal with, and he should be applauded for his decision and not scrutinised like you seem intent to do. Furthermore, it will have also to some extent relieved the obvious repercussions that your unsporting and cheating player would have brought on himself for his dreadful action in the future. For his sake, yours and that of your club, Fer should be grateful for that.
I think the best way forward on these issues is not for teams to kick the ball out of play but to let the ref decide to stop play.
This I agree with 100%, it was a common sense thing to do, but I am only defending my comments that the ref made a balls up of it, and of course you are right, there is no certainty that CH would have agreed to allowing a Cardiff goal, and Cardiff would have no right to appeal if the Norwich goal stood, and were not allowed to score. What does annoy me a little is a few people damning Leroy Fer, and calling Norwich 'cheats', or try to cheat as there are two questions to be answered, and I removing all emotion from this..... 1. Did the ref know where Marshall was standing? He should have, and if he did and let play continue, should not have penalised Norwich. 2. Why was Marshall nowhere near the goal, as assume the ball would come to him? The whole incident was a farce for many reasons, and one of them being, what where Marshall's motives for hoofing the ball out when Tettey hit the floor, after all, Tettey was back on his feet before the ball crossed the touchline, so it was not really necessary in the first place, and I think this may (only may) have played a small part (or maybe a large part) in what followed. What Glamexile says in the next post, is spot on - do away with this 'gentleman's agreement' nonsense, and make the ref responsible, and the players to play to the whistle, a phrase they are happy to use to their advantage
Ex-Premier league referee, Dermot Gallagher was asked about the incident on Talksport on Saturday evening and agreed with Mr Jones decision. He said that it wouldn`t be "ethical" to allow a late goal in such circumstances and reckons that by the letter of the law that Jones got it right as a player had been injured and play was stopped. Just as a matter of interest, more than one way to look at things, depending on how badly you want it to be a goal or not.
