Controversy at Norwich

"Solano what you appear to be missing is the fact the Ref can not just simply make new rules up to please the PC brigade."

Again .. the PC brigade

LOL. Get off to the Daily Mail, there's surely a comment section about "so called global warming" or "them illegals" missing your talents.

would you really feel bad about it if your team had score, personally i wouldnt give a ****

Oct 26, 2013 -- 7:54PM, AyersRock wrote:

would you really feel bad about it if your team had score, personally i wouldnt give a ****

Same here, there would be another story along a few days later

The perceived 'rule' that the OP indicated had to happen and The Priest would have preferred to have happened.  i.e. that the Norwich goal stands and they would have had to / in all probability, allowed Cardiff to walk the ball into the net.

You're probably correct - to the best of my knowledge it isn't a rule.  But it doesn't mean that we didn't see the right outcome.

common sense , hmmmm,


why hasnt the rule already been changed to prohibit the scoring of an accidental goal

simple wording that a team must have clear possesion after a ball is returned to them before a goal is scored
would sort the problem, which has happened several times and is ignored

See - all you need is a good lawyer.

ref put in a difficult position again

fwiw , i think he did the right thing despite it not being consistant with the rules

Of course he did.

You might know this one donny (I don't).

When a team boots the ball out as there is an opposing player on the floor, is it in the 'rules' that the ball should be returned to the team that booted it out?  I suspect it isn't, but some refs seem to indicate it needs to happen, some don't.

There is no rule, and people are getting caught up with the outcome of the game which is irrelevant to the kernel of the argument, the ref disallowed a perfectly legitimate goal for Norwich. All the other suppositions of pocket talking/common sense/fair play are superfluous because nobody knows for certain what would have happened afterwards..The goal should have stood, if Norwich wanted to apply  sportsmanship to the game they could/should have but it was completely their call not the ref's to level the game.

no it isnt in the rules, as far as i know anyway

but its a convention that promotes good sportsmanship, so worth encouraging

Re-read the OP TP.

Indeed donny - might as well not bother with the throw and boot back to the keeper and just award a goal kick.

But a foul can be given for unsportsmanlike conduct. So if he'd blown up and offered a foul, that would be in the rules?
This was by any measure unsportsmanlike conduct, surely?

No, in this instance  he can't , which makes Fifa/Uefa's sportsmanlike charter pretty impotent , they need to clarify the rules, but personally I am against the opposition having to return the ball from the throw in as I think it encourages time wasting through players falling to the floor and stopping play.

Maybe it should be done the ref? e.g. ball kicked out of play, ref himself throws ball to player pointed at by team captain, as quickly as possible.
Problem solved?

Not if it's 0-0, and you're on BTTS.

Poll would have awarded the goal, then immediately blown for full time.

LOL Temple - he's a coont!

Would much rather see the ref disallow in these circumstances than witness the farce of the offending side allowing the opposition to walk the ball in to make up for it.

Why should he disallow a perfectly good goal?

I can't understand this?

You kick it back to the keeper for e.g , he allows it to squirm under his legs and goes in , why should the ref be allowed to disallow things because it doesn't suit him?

Yes, after giving it we then would get the farce that follows but that isn't the point , the Ref is not allowed to make it up as he goes along no matter how 'Right on' it may seem to everybody.

What next , team losing 0-5 , feel sorry for them, so in the interests of sportsmanship the ref will let them get a couple back, they have families and kids watching you know , could scar them for life.

Perhaps if we did away with all this rubbish in the first place and got it back to been the contact sport between two teams it used to be instead of Patticake patticake bake me a pie Football has become we wouldn't be debating this.

its on MOTD now

Looking at the wide angle view, the ref hadn't restarted play - he was looking in totally the other direction.

No need for  a ref to restart play from a throw, the ref has made a rick.
but made it for the right reasons.

no whistle to start so no goal

Priest is spot on.

These are the facts:
1) It was a goal
2) It was incorrectly disallowed by the referee.
3) Normally in these circumstances the team that have just 'accidentally' scored allow the other team to walk on in
4) This does not always happen but when it doesn't the governing bodies always replay the match

none of these 4 points are in dispute. The only bet I had on the game was on Cardiff, so my bet was already a loser either way.

Oct 26, 2013 -- 11:42PM, brngtwt wrote:

No need for  a ref to restart play from a throw, the ref has made a rick.but made it for the right reasons.

I did wonder this. Right outcome, not sure of the way he got there, but he was in a bit of a no win situation.

the next time he books a player for time wasting at a throw in when he hasnt blown his whistle might be fun !

will be interesting to see what dermot will have to say tomorrow.

Can't believe that no one is giving any stick to the norwich player over this. What was Fer thinking? Can't score a goal from normal play so we'll try and tap one in instead of giving it back to the keeper. Poor form.

The ref showed some common sense.

Darlo, the ref was looking at the thrower and gave him a wave of the arm expecting him to throw it back to the keeper!

Oct 27, 2013 -- 12:08AM, Biscuit1979 wrote:

Can't believe that no one is giving any stick to the norwich player over this. What was Fer thinking? Can't score a goal from normal play so we'll try and tap one in instead of giving it back to the keeper. Poor form. The ref showed some common sense.

Said it was different in holland so if it is you cant fault him

Agree that the ref hasn't exactly been clear, ok honest, about his reasons for disallowing it but no way the goal should have stood.

No such thing as fair play in football, win at all a costs, all winners are underhand in one way or another, class on the surface, scum underneath, deny everything.

its like I was saying a while back, we should start diving and cheating at international level then we might start winning something cos let's face it, we're not going to win it by playing football. Nice guys finish last.

Firstly - Fer was out of order, plus giving the reason that it happens in Holland?? Why would any Dutch teams kick it out then??! Cobblers.
Secondly - the ref has dug a hole with his excuse for not giving permission for the throw as exposed by MOTD - looked as if he panicked when the players squared up and went for the easy option.
Finally - would like to believe that even Norwich aren't that desperate to want to win like that

It was only last weekend that the guy (forget match) took ball of keeper bouncing ball and scored, against rules, but stood.
I'm sick of people on this forum defending the cheating of Ronaldo because he can take a good free kick or neymar because
he can dribble etc, as if one good skill gives cart blanche to be an ars*.

I'm not sure what to make of this "the priest" guy. He calls people who believe in basic sportsmanship "the pc brigade" and
then says " the Ref is not allowed to make it up as he goes along no matter how 'Right on' it may seem to everybody"
continuing this riduculously reactionary theme

There is nothing "right on" or "PC" (I don't think the priest even understands where that came from) about wanting
basic sportsmanship and right and wrong in sport. 150 ****ing years ago in the most conservative cricket team
in the most conservative village in England they'd have understood the basic morals of spotsmanship, got VERY annoyed
at people going against that, then be off the next day to rule some part of the empire. Hardly the "PC Brigade" or
"Right on sandal wearers". It's nothing to do with "right on" or "PC" you ridiculous.....

sportsmanship lol, you are living in cloud cuckoo land, you're too English, and English football is full of losers - the managers are useless at the top level, and so are most of the players - top managers get their players to cheat and dive to win european and world cups, see mourinhos porto sides especially in the UEFA cup 2003, see guardiolas drugged up Barca players hunting down the ball and keeping it for 90 minutes solid, all winning managers are foreign because not only do they know the game, they play it.

Name one English mananger who has won anything significant in since Howard Wilkenshon won the league with Leeds 21 years ago, I can;t think of anyone, no league tile in a top league let alone a European or World cup, they never venture outside of England and therefore live by the fair play nonsense knowing full well the media will come down on him and his team like a ton of bricks if they were dirty,  thats why i think mourinhos gone a bit soft back at chelsea.

Same with the players, hardly ever go abroad, never learn the tricks of the trade, diving and cheating the ref is a necessary art form, sportsmanship is for losers, ask Matzerazzi world cup winner 2006.

I disagree, and it's nothing to do with "nationality", which you've attempted to decompose it to.
Maybe I'm old school but I believe in right and wrong, and I hate cheaters and cheating.

Ok lets call your bluff and rationalise your argument. Do you think cheating is quite acceptable in Scotland, Wales, Northern Irelandm, Ireland, and "England" is somehow lacking or weak for not doing so?

Don't dodge it, this is a direct question. Answer here ->:

People talking through theyre kick imo!! Common Sense is not very common these days.

no no, lets have it straight - I'm not attempting anything - I'm telling you for a fact it's all about nationality and cultural characteristics that determine winners in football these days, the proof is all there laid bare, it's not opinion.

Lump all the home nations in there, we all have this fair play bollocks mentality, difference is those countries havn't a prayer from the off because there is only so far you can get with limited quality - England have the players who will never be the best at a world cup, but cheating here, diving there, it will get you far.

How ironic that The Priest goes on about the pc brigade when the only reason Cardiff would have been allowed to walk the ball up the other end would have been to appease that very same pc brigade who don't believe games should be won or lost in that manner.

This reminded me of that Man U goal the other year against Tottenham where Gomes put the ball down thinking a free kick had been given and Nani tapped it in. In that instance Clattenburg didn't use common sense and the ref today did.

If Sportsmanship is more important than the basic rules of the game we might as well all go Morris dancing.

The ball was in play and it ended up in the net. The ref is lying if he says it wasn't because you can clearly see him wave the ball in, and as someone else pointed out, you don't need to wait for a ref's whistle from a throw in anyway.

The fact that Fer "shouldn't" have scored is irrelevent. At that point you can't go back and take a throw in again. It's a goal. Tough ****. So what then has to happen is a walk-in equaliser. If Norwich didn't at that stage allow a Cardiff equaliser, the F.A. would have replayed the game.

Was also very disappointed to hear the Norwich boss saying that he would've had a decision to make if the goal had been allowed? Shameful. To my mind sportsmanship is important even in this day and age of mega bucks, and our global reputation for Canary followers built up over 100 years would have been ruined forever.

it depends what happend next....

If the ref demanded that the throw in should be retaken then NO GOAL

If the ball was just given to goalie or one of those drop ball free kicks was awarded, then the goal should have stood

If norwich go down by two points then it all could be going to the courts.

marychain1 27 Oct 13 08:50 
If Norwich didn't at that stage allow a Cardiff equaliser, the F.A. would have replayed the game.

Alternatively, you can get rid of all that BS by disallowing the goal, as the ref correctly did. Even if he did lie about why he did it!

You can't just disallow a goal because you feel like it though.

If that goal had been allowed in the 94th minute against Crewe, you would have been rightly livid.

The referee incorrectly disallowed the goal, he then lied about his reasoning for doing so. Everything else is irrelevant and pure speculation as to what may or may not have happened afterwards...

The fact that Fer "shouldn't" have scored is irrelevent. At that point you can't go back and take a throw in again


The rules are applied at the ref's discretion. If he says he wasn't ready for the game to restart then that's it end of story. You may not believe him but that doesn't matter as he's the sole arbiter.

I wouldn't have been livid at all, it was a goal. There's no room to be livid.

I would have been livid if the opposition didn't follow convention by allowing a walk-in goal. But then if they didn't the game would be replayed anyway.

what was the referee thinking?

that is the question here. you can't just rule out perfectly good goals regardless of what happened before.

Just another example of how referees think they are more important than the actual game being played

spot on delphe

spot on delphe

Norwich and Cardiff have been charged by the Football Association for a confrontation between some of their players during Saturday's 0-0 draw.
The teams have been accused of failing to ensure their players conducted themselves in an orderly fashion.
The scuffle in added-on time came after Canaries midfielder Leroy Fer attempted to score from a throw-in when Cardiff had put the ball out for an injury.
Both clubs have until 18:00 GMT on 4 November to respond to the charge.
The incident occurred after Cardiff had kicked the ball out of play to allow Norwich's Alex Tettey to receive treatment.
Rather than play the ball back to visiting keeper David Marshall, Netherlands international Fer rolled the ball into an empty net - something he later admitted was intentional.
Referee Michael Jones disallowed the goal, saying he had not restarted play, but Cardiff's players reacted angrily to Fer's decision.

The reason I heard was that the ref hadn't whistled for the game to re-start but surely you can take a throw-in without the ref whistling, it happens all the time.  I accept that the outcome was fair in the end and that Norwich would have allowed Cardiff to walk the ball in for an equaliser had the goal stood.  The thing that annoys me is referees and their assistants making stories up after the event to justify their incorrect actions.

This wasn't a normal throw in. A signal had to be given to restart because play had been stopped for an injury.

Play was stopped twice for injuries in the Brighton v Watford game the other night. The first restart was with a throw and the second with a goal kick. On both occasions the ref blew his whistle for play to restart.

Graham Poll's take

For referee Mike Jones to claim he did not signal for Norwich to take the throw-in that led to Leroy Fer rolling the ball into an unguarded net against Cardiff is a cop-out.

As the pictures show, Ricky van Wolfswinkel clearly waits to be instructed by Jones that play can resume and it is equally clear the official waves an arm indicating as such.

Only then does he take the throw-in to Fer, who does what no-one expects and scores.

Fer said after the game that Jones told players he ruled out the goal because he had not blown his whistle to restart. That was backed up by his bosses at the Professional Game Match Officials.

But that’s rubbish. Ask players how many times they have waited for a referee to whistle before taking a throw-in. The answer will be never.

Mike Jones made the signal with his arm. The rulebook does not say it has to be a whistle. At that moment, Jones knows that, in the spirit of the game, Norwich should not score. David Marshall had thrown the ball out because of an injury to Alex Tettey in added time.

But a referee cannot choose to ignore the laws of the game. He should have gone over to the managers and said: ‘This isn’t right.’

Malky Mackay claimed Chris Hughton immediately said his players would allow Cardiff to walk the ball in if the goal stood. There is plenty of precedent for that. Instead, we have this ****-and-bull story.

Where is the credibility in that? A way to combat this is for players to let referees determine when play should be stopped for injuries. Then play can resume with a drop ball, involving only one player from the side in possession.

In this way, ugly scenes such as we saw when the two teams clashed might be avoided.

Graham Poll is a bellend but I agree with his take on this to the letter

there was no disallowed goal

the ref blew up before it went in due to unsporting conduct

obviously he should have probably booked fer but no idea why people are getting to angry

i'm a norwich fan and thought the ref did superb in the face of thick cheating footballers

for once i find myself in complete agreement with poll.

the ref certainly copped out, and , more importantly, decided unilaterally to operate outside of the laws of the game that he was there to administer.

he should have allowed the goal to stand,then restart play with expectation that  the that the team who had profited from the "unfair goal" would do the right thing.

like ian merseyside i get annoyed when officials "cobble together" explanations after the event in order to suit their own purpose.

it happened the previous week with the goal that was wrongly allowed to stand for chelsea, both the ref and linesman tried to convince anybody who would listen that the goalie dropped the ball rather than bounced it, when it was obvious to anybody who saw it that he was bouncing it and therefore it was in his control and no goal.

it's perfectly obvious to me that neither the ref or linesman saw what happened so therefore he can take no action, but to actually lie about the situation is terrible, far worse than saying something like " sorry i didn't see anything untoward happen so therefore by the laws of the game i'm duty bound to award a goal"

Not for the first time in his life Poll isn't telling the truth is he because as I said what he says never happens did happen twice in one match alone on Monday night.

In this instance the ref gave that reason on the pitch in the immediate aftermath so it wasn't something he cobbled together. He thought on his feet to disallow a "goal" which should never have been scored. In doing so he took away any "dilemma" Hughton may have had and also ensured there was no need for the farce of Norwich standing aside to let Cardiff score. As I said previously on this thread if the ref said he wasn't ready for the game to restart then he wasn't ready, end of story.

It's quite ironic that people are saying the ref acted outside the laws of the game but then say Norwich should have done the right thing and let Cardiff score. Well that's not in the laws of the game either. By doing that you'd have been expecting them to act in the spirit of the game. Guess what? That's exactly what the ref did.

In the aftermath, Leroy Fer is now a marked man, as proved in the penalty against him at Old Trafford on Tuesday. Referees will now try to get their own back with him and will not be surprised to see further penalties and/or red cards in the coming weeks.

Marcce

The ref's claim that he wasnt ready to restart is not consistent with his wave for the player to restart play.

And you say it "shouldn't" have been scored. Yet there is nothing in the rules to say that it shouldn't. Indeed, if the ball is in play and it goes in the net then it is a goal.

You are correct to say it isn't in the rules for Norwich to allow a walk-in equaliser but it is convention. And precedent says that if it hadn't happened the game would have been replayed.

Whether it's consistent with the wave or not doesn't matter one iota. Whatever contradictory signals you saw, the ref said he wasn't ready for play to restart because he hadn't blown his whistle and that's it. His word is final. Therefore, the ball was not back in play and it wasn't a goal.

He's obviously told a little white lie to sort out the situation but contrary to what some people are saying, he didn't make up his own law and it was for the good of the game. Let's not forget that league positions can be determined by goals scored. What if a team ended up going down by virtue of Norwich or Cardiff scoring one more goal than them if this goal had been allowed and Cardiff had walked it in down the other end?

The correct score of that game was 0-0 and that's the score we got.

It wasnt though. There was a goal. The ref can't make up his own rules, disallow a perfectly good goal and then lie to cover it.

Yes it was bad sportsmanship by Fer but so what? There's probably about 50 goals a season scored where there's been bad sportsmanship in the build up, either a foul not seen or a dive for a free kick or penalty wrongly given. This bad sportsmanship wasn't breaking any rules AND there's convention in place to cover it.

it seems to me that the "litmus test" would be the following question.

"do you think the referee would have ordered the throw in to be re-taken had that goal not been scored"

if you think the answer is no, then by definaition the ref has ridden a coach and four through the laws of the game.

The ref can't make up his own rules, disallow a perfectly good goal and then lie to cover it.

If you think it's a perfectly good goal then there's no convention needed is there? The final score is 1-0 to Morwich and tough on Cardiff.

Whichever way you want to spin it the ref did the right thing.

How anyone can even think the ref did the right thing is beyond me..It was a goal..What happens after is of no concern to the argument (as far as the goal should stand)..

Ball was never in play. What happens after is of no concern to the argument

lol "ball was never in play" And YOU BELIEVE that?

Well the "goalscorer" believed it

lol "ball was never in play" LaughLaughLaughAnd YOU BELIEVE that?

It wasn't in play because the ref said it wasn't.

What you or anyone else thinks of his explanation is neither here nor there. The ball was not back in play according to the ref.

lol

The ref f ucked up and back tracked..We all know that..

if ball wasnt in play , fer should have been booked for time wasting

The only c ock up was the REF..

funny ref, i wonder if he knows the rules of the game

beach balls , this , and now tiote

and cabaye and mbiwa baresi mbiwa

cabaye was lucky, mbiwa was a yellow

mbiwa first foul was yellow the kick that followed was yellow. honestly think he lost control of his senses. could get a retrospective ban =reckon depend on nasri prognosis.

you cant make rules to fit the injury

that would be as bad as this bloke allowing the beach ball goal because he didnt know the rule

and as bad as creating a new rule for fers goal

the laws are there for all to see

im not  ,but can imagine it happening.

i dont mean just you !


id think it highly unlikely , but as you say, it can happen

by all means look at fouls after, but judge foul on foul and not on the injury



this guy is building up a nice history of eccentric decisions

should have been a school teacher, or policeman where his creative use of rules
would be handy

was bizarre , must admit ,esp as lino didn't give it. plus if man city players never said anything nothing would have changed.

Donny Osmond.

Puttin Mackems' bait up, since 1892.

not really, just another odd decision from a ref with a history

Donny, if they were any good at anything in life they wouldn't be referees.

Was poor, but you win some, you lose some.

yep i know

there'll be a next time for this chap, he cant help himself so wheel be back

Always last left on the wall at school........

he seems to be building a very colourful cv.

You are suggesting he can use a crayon.

Very poor mex.  had he believed in his decision, he'd have sent of Cabaye.

But after the initial booking.......

absolutely right sol, the reason he didn't give a second yellow imo was because the crowd were on his back after his first balls up.

weak officiating in the extreme.

Yep.

But, Cabaye wouldn't have been booked.......

when the second city player was booked today the ref looked at his name and number before pulling his card out

it would have taken something special to get a red today

Aye, t honk it was Zabaletta that he was going to book then realised he already had.

right again sol. but we now get into the "second yellow" syndrome, refs are reluctant to do it, even more so when they think they've made a rick with the first one.

to my mind it could suggest he wasn't exactly over the moon about his initial decision.

Fkn he'll - not bad after half a dozen pots of the black stuff, and a hip flask.

They'll know at half time if they've made a rick mex.  no way will they be shut off from the outside world in their little room.

they might be on here at half time

i reckon the ref posts as half loser 22