|
Post by northwestman on Jan 25, 2004 19:43:31 GMT 1
The "no penalty incident" at scarborough brought back memories as to how chesterfield were so cruelly denied by elleray in that f.a. cup semi final a few years ago. How does it always transpire in games of such importance that the little club not only has the Premier League club to beat but also the referee as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2004 20:00:02 GMT 1
I was thinking about the Chesterfield match yesterday too after seeing that blatent handball at the Scarborough / Chelsea match.
That obvious goal would have put them 4-1 up and think of the money they would have earned in the FA Cup final. The club almost went to the wall a couple of years later.
As for Scarborough, a replay at Stamford Bridge could have earned them 750k + and guaranteed their survival for many years to come.
Refs are not only refereeing a match, they are dealing with the futures of whole clubs. Perhaps video replays etc could be used sparingly in such incidents?
How long would it have taken for a decision to be made on either decision? Seconds. The game could be allowed to continue for those few seconds and if a different decision is made, then play could be bought back.
|
|
|
Post by 77sunsetstrip on Jan 25, 2004 20:36:53 GMT 1
I believe that referees have an agenda to see (if at all possible) that the big teams get through to the latter stages.They are NOT unbiased! Remember the NAILED-On penalty that was refused when Luke was hacked down against Everton. You hear quite often during commentaries that a referee will EVEN THINGS OUT if he's given a penalty or refused one. If you cannot trust an official to be totally honest - Whats the point? The commentators seem to think its perfectly normal for a referee to influence a football match.The only way out is to score legitimate goals that even the referee can't dispute.
|
|