Guiseley v Braintree - you decide!

[Lanterne Rouge]

I remember one about what should the ref do if a player took to the field smoking a cigarette. How times have changed.

[Steve Watts]

1 hour ago, BCFC_Dan said:

I was at the game. It was all very silly indeed.

At the time I thought I could see why Guiseley didn't let them walk a goal in as the keeper made no effort at all to stop the ball going in and of course it was a perfectly fair goal so the ref had to allow it. However I've since seen the video of it and it's quite obvious that Norburn (ex Bristol Rovers, incidentally) deliberately chipped the ball over the keeper. There is no way he was simply trying to return the ball.

It's disappointing that Guiseley, who are an otherwise fine, friendly and honorable club, should have acted in this way, though in the manager's defence he won't have seen the replay either and they're in a relegation battle and need all the points they can get.

Oh and regarding playing to the whistle, Guiseley had the ball when the player first went down and continued playing. It was only after Braintree had won the ball back that they put it out, hence Guiseley having to return the ball to them.

Not a chance did he mean to score. To suggest that someone who wasn't even deemed good enough for the slags could chip the keeper from 45-50 yards into the top corner is crazy! 

Having said that, a walk in would've been the sporting thing to do.

[Fordy62]

A little bit cringeworthy seeing the manager try to defend it. He honourably went down the "didn't really see it" route. 

On a different note, we didn't let Crystal Palace (?) have their ghost goal did we? Is that so different?

pretty bad watching it back. The whole team knew it was a goal. Still I won't lose too much sleep over upsetting Colin!

 

 

[Lord Spandex]

I would prefer even to fail with honour than to win by cheating.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 hour ago, BCFC_Dan said:

But there's clearly some doubt over whether or not they needed to be sporting about it and if they'd given a goal back and ended the season one point short of safety it'd be scant consolation that they made a generous gesture.

I'm not saying they were right or wrong, just that it's not completely straightforward and I can see both sides.

That's not the excuse the manager used though is it?, he blamed their keeper I didn't hear any mention of whether or not they had to act sportingly, can't have it both ways.

 

[redsquirrel]

6 minutes ago, Lord Spandex said:

I would prefer even to fail with honour than to win by cheating.

having that wiped off colins smirk was awesome

[Esmond Million's Bung]

6 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

A little bit cringeworthy seeing the manager try to defend it. He honourably went down the "didn't really see it" route. 

On a different note, we didn't let Crystal Palace (?) have their ghost goal did we? Is that so different?

pretty bad watching it back. The whole team knew it was a goal. Still I won't lose too much sleep over upsetting Colin!

 

 

Totally different and as a man of the law you should know that, it was, is and would never be within our gift to allow any goal, that is clearly for the referee and his assistants and if they aren't sure they cannot give it, whatever players might say.

[Fordy62]

4 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Totally different and as a man of the law you should know that, it was, is and would never be within our gift to allow any goal, that is clearly for the referee and his assistants and if they aren't sure they cannot give it, whatever players might say.

I suppose my point was more about sportsmanship than it was the letter of the law. 

Don't you think it was unsporting to not allow a walk in given the the whole team knew it was a fair goal? Just like a walk in should have been allowed in the original post?

[The Journalist]

3 hours ago, cityexile said:

Basically, ball has been kicked out for an injury. In restarting, kicking it back to the goalie it has gone in. One side says, meh, we will take the goal. Other says you should now give us a walk in. 

Your views? Play to the whistle? Bad sportsmanship? 

 

Could've avoided a lot of fuss if the referee had just pulled them up for the foul throw-in.

[havanatopia]

14 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Plain and simple cheating northern bastards.

 

I was going to say something very similar except use 'bar stewards' but I think your version probably has more impact.

I wonder if such a thing has ever happened before in English football? I find it hard to understand how a player and then a ref can do such a thing and then allow it; smacks of a bung to me.

I hope the result is overturned. Absolutely shocking it was allowed to stand or a walk in did not follow at the other end. I now hope Guiseley are relegated; no room for cheating. And as for their manager; what an ignorant few words he came with it. If I was the owner of that club I would sack him on the spot; seems he is pretty useless anyway.

[Chappers]

I seem to recall something similar at City many years ago and the ref just blew for a foul throw. The fact that all players were indicating a pass back to keeper destroys all credibility of any defence for claiming the goal. 

With Internet and social media, they will now be very disliked and manager will be seen nationally as a complete a*sehole. I doubt it went down too well with their own supporters. Long term it won't do them any favours, and for a small club like that, negative publicity like this is not good news.

[BCFC_Dan]

2 hours ago, havanatopia said:

 If I was the owner of that club I would sack him on the spot; seems he is pretty useless anyway.

What a good job you're not. You'd make Massimo Cellino look calm, rational and reasonable.

[Robin1988]

14 hours ago, BCFC_Dan said:

That's exactly the case. I don't know what the ref said to the players though. Braintree were quite clearly expecting the ball to be passed back to them and I suppose the ref should have made it clear that Guiseley didn't have to.

Ref hasn't done anything wrong really, don't know why the players were getting at him (or why he even needed to consult with his linesman). The decision was there for the players to make and they did it.

[havanatopia]

5 minutes ago, BCFC_Dan said:

What a good job you're not. You'd make Massimo Cellino look calm, rational and reasonable.

How very undroll.

Unlike him i do not want people at my club who are cheats and dishonourable.

[Robin1988]

Has someone been pissing in your coffee for the last few weeks Havantopia?

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

I love all this sactimonious stuff.  Sportsmanship?  Don't make me laugh.  Players dive, harass the referee,feign injury, time waste, you name it, but woe betide anyone who plays on when an opponent decides to have a test. What a joke. This putting the ball out stuff is absolute hypocrisy.  If a player is seriously injured then it is the referee's responsibility to stop play, not the players'.  I say play to the whistle AT ALL TIMES.

[Redtucks]

19 minutes ago, Robin1988 said:

Ref hasn't done anything wrong really, don't know why the players were getting at him (or why he even needed to consult with his linesman). The decision was there for the players to make and they did it.

If the ref had told them that he expected the ball to be played back, shouldn't there then have been a booking for unsporting behaviour???

 

 

 

[Robin1988]

1 minute ago, Redtucks said:

If the ref had told them that he expected the ball to be played back, shouldn't there then have been a booking for unsporting behaviour???

It's not the referee's job to tell someone to play the ball back. The players can make their own moral choices.

[tony32]

This is not fair play

[Redtucks]

13 minutes ago, Robin1988 said:

It's not the referee's job to tell someone to play the ball back. The players can make their own moral choices.

Very true.

However, often with a dropped ball it's agreed that it will be uncontested in order to return it to the side that were in possession, but in this case it was a throw-in so I don't suppose that occurred. 

 

[Portland Bill]

27 minutes ago, Redtucks said:

If the ref had told them that he expected the ball to be played back, shouldn't there then have been a booking for unsporting behaviour???

 

 

 

The Ref is not allowed to get involved in telling players what to do in that situation. 

[Nogbad the Bad]

45 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I love all this sactimonious stuff.  Sportsmanship?  Don't make me laugh.  Players dive, harass the referee,feign injury, time waste, you name it, but woe betide anyone who plays on when an opponent decides to have a test. What a joke. This putting the ball out stuff is absolute hypocrisy.  If a player is seriously injured then it is the referee's responsibility to stop play, not the players'.  I say play to the whistle AT ALL TIMES.

Completely agree.

It's not for players to decide when to stop the game.

If a Braintree player put the ball out for one of their own players to be treated why should the Guiseley players should return the ball to them?

In fact if the ref. didn't blow the whistle Braintree have sought to gain an advantage (or lose a disadvantage) by putting the ball out.

If a Guiseley player put the ball out for a Braintree player to be treated, when the ref. was content to play on, then the Braintree players would be under no obligation to throw the ball back to them. By putting the ball out of play the decision had been taken to accede possession to the opponents.

Either way, this putting the ball out without the ref's whistle is truly pathetic and one of the many infuriating things about modern football.

The rules are clear, play on unless it is a head injury, when the ref. will stop the game if he feels the player requires immediate treatment. It's his decision, no one else's.

Letting a team 'walk the ball in' after such an incident is completely against the rules of the game, and anyone complicit in this should be booked and the goal must not stand. To make no effort to prevent the other team scoring is obviously unacceptable, and completely unfair on other teams in the division.

I'd be pleased if BCFC took the lead on this and announced they will always play to the whistle, will never take matters into their own hands by kicking the ball out for an opposition player to get treatment except under truly exceptional circumstances, and fully understand their opponents will do likewise.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

14 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

I suppose my point was more about sportsmanship than it was the letter of the law. 

Don't you think it was unsporting to not allow a walk in given the the whole team knew it was a fair goal? Just like a walk in should have been allowed in the original post?

Modern football and sportsmanship now there's a concept in fact to me the same as the concept that every footballer seen overtly praying or giving thanks on high is actually a fully practising religious person of whatever persuasion.

[martin25]

2 hours ago, BCFC_Dan said:

What a good job you're not. You'd make Massimo Cellino look calm, rational and reasonable.

[Dave]

Three points, Braintree are not lined up like they are going to be defending a throw in, and the Guiseley number 19 looks a bit amazed when the goal is scored.

plus Arsene Wenger offered Sheffield United a replay when his team did not throw the ball back, and scored.

[ChippenhamRed]

My thoughts on this...

1. Points about the keeper failing to react, playing to the whistle, and the rights and wrongs of deliberately putting the ball out of play, are basically irrelevant.  Everyone knew the drill here - it was Braintree's ball, play it back to them and carry on with the game.  It's not for one player to decide to do away with an established etiquette of fair play.

2. It is shameful that a walk-in goal didn't follow.

3. The reaction of some of the Guiseley fans, who celebrated the goal and chanted their name, is probably the most soul-destroying thing about the whole incident.  Even at this level, for some people it seems like nothing matters any more other than winning - at any cost.  Sad to see.  I certainly wouldn't have celebrated that.

4. I wonder if there could be some sort of rule that the referee could invoke in these situations to disallow such a goal, defined along the lines of "clear and obvious unsporting behaviour resulting in a goal".  Would it be too subjective, or would it enable the official to easily defuse these situations?  Personally I think it could work.  Incidents such as this and the Arsenal v Sheff Utd incident are pretty clear cut with the application of common sense.

[Robin1988]

1 hour ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

Completely agree.

It's not for players to decide when to stop the game.

If a Braintree player put the ball out for one of their own players to be treated why should the Guiseley players should return the ball to them?

In fact if the ref. didn't blow the whistle Braintree have sought to gain an advantage (or lose a disadvantage) by putting the ball out.

If a Guiseley player put the ball out for a Braintree player to be treated, when the ref. was content to play on, then the Braintree players would be under no obligation to throw the ball back to them. By putting the ball out of play the decision had been taken to accede possession to the opponents.

Either way, this putting the ball out without the ref's whistle is truly pathetic and one of the many infuriating things about modern football.

The rules are clear, play on unless it is a head injury, when the ref. will stop the game if he feels the player requires immediate treatment. It's his decision, no one else's.

Letting a team 'walk the ball in' after such an incident is completely against the rules of the game, and anyone complicit in this should be booked and the goal must not stand. To make no effort to prevent the other team scoring is obviously unacceptable, and completely unfair on other teams in the division.

I'd be pleased if BCFC took the lead on this and announced they will always play to the whistle, will never take matters into their own hands by kicking the ball out for an opposition player to get treatment except under truly exceptional circumstances, and fully understand their opponents will do likewise.

It depends if you prescribe to a win-at-all-costs mentality or one favouring sportsmanship. It's completely understandable favouring the former, but I would like to think there is still room for sportsmanship in the game, especially at the level shown, which hasn't been ruined by money.

Let's give the Braintree player the benefit of doubt and say he is genuinely injured. The referee won't blow unless he has suffered a head injury, so is largely powerless unless his leg is hanging off. If you're a Braintree player on the ball, and you believe your team mate is injured, would you put the ball out so they could get treatment? I would, and I think most people would. You could argue about players feigning injury, diving etc., and that does need to be stamped out, but let's assume this player is actually injured.

In such a situation, the sporting thing to do would be to return the ball from the throw-in, since the play was stopped through an injury rather than to gain an intentional advantage.

Of course there's nothing in the laws of the game which says this should happen. But if there's room for sportsmanship in football, and it's a sad state of affairs if there isn't, I'd like to think it would.

[Nogbad the Bad]

24 minutes ago, Robin1988 said:

It depends if you prescribe to a win-at-all-costs mentality or one favouring sportsmanship. It's completely understandable favouring the former, but I would like to think there is still room for sportsmanship in the game, especially at the level shown, which hasn't been ruined by money.

Let's give the Braintree player the benefit of doubt and say he is genuinely injured. The referee won't blow unless he has suffered a head injury, so is largely powerless unless his leg is hanging off. If you're a Braintree player on the ball, and you believe your team mate is injured, would you put the ball out so they could get treatment? I would, and I think most people would. You could argue about players feigning injury, diving etc., and that does need to be stamped out, but let's assume this player is actually injured.

In such a situation, the sporting thing to do would be to return the ball from the throw-in, since the play was stopped through an injury rather than to gain an intentional advantage.

Of course there's nothing in the laws of the game which says this should happen. But if there's room for sportsmanship in football, and it's a sad state of affairs if there isn't, I'd like to think it would.

I don't think that's the case at all.

The ref. can certainly stop play for other injuries apart from a head injury if he considers it necessary for the player to get urgent attention. 

It's just that for head injuries he is obliged to.

The players do not need to be involved in the decision and it leads to all sorts of complications when they take it upon themselves to stop the game.

It's a very recent 'etiquette' and a completely unnecessary one imo.

The football authorities have been sufficiently concerned about this to put out guidelines to the affect that players should play to the referees' whistle and NOT kick the ball out. If everyone followed these guidelines there would be no confusion and no problem.

If a team want to kick the ball out for one of their own injured players ( as I said above basically to prevent a temporary disadvantage to their team) - so be it, no one can stop them, but then they shouldn't expect the ball to be thrown back to them!

As for kicking the ball out for an injured opposition player, no -  get on with the game and leave matters to the ref.

[Robin1988]

5 minutes ago, Nogbad the Bad said:

I don't think that's the case at all.

The ref. can certainly stop play for other injuries apart from a head injury if he considers it necessary for the player to get urgent attention. 

It's just that for head injuries he is obliged to.

The players do not need to be involved in the decision and it leads to all sorts of complications when they take it upon themselves to stop the game.

It's a very recent 'etiquette' and a completely unnecessary one imo.

The football authorities have been sufficiently concerned about this to put out guidelines to the affect that players should play to the referees' whistle and NOT kick the ball out. If everyone followed these guidelines there would be no confusion and no problem.

If a team want to kick the ball out for one of their own injured players ( as I said above basically to prevent a temporary disadvantage to their team) - so be it, no one can stop them, but then they shouldn't expect the ball to be thrown back to them!

As for kicking the ball out for an injured opposition player, no -  get on with the game and leave matters to the ref.

I was speaking more from experience of watching City than interpreting the laws of the game, and sometimes players are down for a long time without the referee doing anything. The rulebook's exact wording is 'serious injury', which is open to interpretation, and regardless I'd think about kicking the ball out for a teammate (so they can receive treatment, not necessarily prevent a disadvantage) for less than that.

It's dangerous to expect the ball to be thrown back to your team, but it's undeniably good sportsmanship. As I said before, I'd like to think there's room in the game for that.

[CiderJar]

Drop ball, kick shins, it's the fairest way.