Peterborough - Ghost Corner
- Thread starter bester
- Start date
Strange one, from the angle shown on the BBC Sport video it looks like it clearly hit the outside of the side netting. At 00:55.
Peterborough recover to beat Newport in FA Cup
Peterborough United recovered from 2-0 down to beat Newport County 4-2 in the first round of the FA Cup.
www.bbc.co.uk
Looked like it hit the keepers feet to me.
What I mean is that there's only one possible way for the ball to get into the goal
Sherlock Holmes can stand down on this one, assuming he doesn't find any gaping holes in the net on his initial crime scene inspection
It was seemingly suggested at the time on local commentary that there was a hole in the net. Very odd one, as the attackers don't really think they have scored, defenders don't seem to have realised they have conceded, everyone seems surprised that the ball is in the goal
I mean to be fair I watched this about 6 times and still couldn't see how on earth it ended up in the net. The photo posted by @bester above shows it's pretty clear mind.
You would think with ball in the back of the net it's pretty hard to see how it got there without going in mind! Then again, that's easy to say from my position and not under the pressure of the match.
You would think with ball in the back of the net it's pretty hard to see how it got there without going in mind! Then again, that's easy to say from my position and not under the pressure of the match.
Can only assume.the ar and ref have never heard of Occam's Razor
It's an interesting one from a psychology perspective
The MO's have believed in what (they think) they've seen (and the muted reaction of players) at the expense of incontrovertible evidence
I do have some sympathy for them.
This must be 'replay territory'.... no?
It's an interesting one from a psychology perspective
The MO's have believed in what (they think) they've seen (and the muted reaction of players) at the expense of incontrovertible evidence
I do have some sympathy for them.
This must be 'replay territory'.... no?
Last edited:
Occams Razor? Is he one of them four hundred Chelsea kids out on loan somewhere?
they won regardless so won't be any need happily
even so i don't think it would fall into any category permitting it? it's just a really bad refs decision no?
I don't think winning means anything when it comes to replay.
I recall the game where a player was sin binned in FA cup. The player was sin binned from the team that won, reported by the team that won, and the game was still replayed.
There's precedence for this when Stuart Attwell and Nigel Bannister gave a goal for Reading against Watford that very clearly hadn't gone into the goal. That was far more obvious, but the game wasn't replayed.
Suspect the reason is it doesn't match the incorrect in law criteria that would justify a replay. Here they thought they saw some and applied the laws based on that, it is what they thought they saw that was wrong. Incorrect in law would be seeing what happened clearly and then applying the laws incorrectly.
Suspect the reason is it doesn't match the incorrect in law criteria that would justify a replay. Here they thought they saw some and applied the laws based on that, it is what they thought they saw that was wrong. Incorrect in law would be seeing what happened clearly and then applying the laws incorrectly.
True, though the offended team winning must have also had a bearing.
Not really, as Watford didn't win in the previous example and the game wasn't replayed.