Twice in as many days … another footbal story, two actually.
Great to see Blades get the decision on the Tevez fiasco at West Ham two seasons ago and love or hate him, great to see Warnock happy. No amount of compensation fixes it of course, but justice is done. (I love the Warnock quote thanking the “independent” witnesses, explaining that whilst he gave his own evidence, he’d “got carried away”. No, really ?)
And the Reading “goal that wasn’t” story. Good news that the league didn’t recommend a replay – what a precedent that would have set ! Coppell said he would be OK if a replay was awarded, but Boothroyd didn’t actually ask for one, so fair play all round, almost ….
- (1) I don’t agree with the general ine of blaming the Lino, just because he admitted the error. The Ref is in charge, and when he conferred with the Lino (which he rightly did), about the ball crossing the line (the Lino was right to raise his flag, the ball did cross the line) the Ref should have asked the Lino to confirm and re-confirm when he thought the ball had crossed the line, not just his opinion that it was a goal … no one in play had claimed a goal … the ref had good reason to doubt his Lino. (But I am in favour of TV / Electronic tools for “ball in play” decisions, though ony when the ball is dead, if that makes any sense.)
- (2) The Reading players and management should have either persuaded the Ref he was wrong on Watford’s behalf at the time or, if they couldn’t convince him, gifted Watford a goal immediately afterwards. There are precedents for such sporting conduct on the pitch. Here’s hoping the fortuitous draw doesn’t prove decisive for either team in the end of season placings.
[Post Note – guess that would make more sense if I pointed out that we were long-term Reading FC season ticket holders (home and away), are life-time members of the supporters trust and still consider Reading as “home”. Like, we’re positively interested in Reading’s results.]