That will be like every England match at every tournament then?Have you ever heard such a biased commentary (the scottish guy...McFadden ?). What chance have refs got when people watch games with such blinkered views
Not really noticed it, but then perhaps i'm wearing my red and white tinted glasses at the time lol. Much better performance by the scots, thoughThat will be like every England match at every tournament then?
Because the only factor taken into account is whether the original attempt by the attacker was 'on target'. Whilst this is obviously a gross over-simplification, things need to be Black and White because of the gambling considerations.I see that the own goal by Schar at 12 minutes got changed to a McTominay goal, but I can't see the logic of that.
McTominay's shot was on target, but was going to pass fairly close to the keeper, who might well have saved it. However, Schar's attempt to stop the ball with his foot massively deflected it into the top corner of the goal, making it impossible for the keeper to save, so how wasn't it Schar's own goal like originally awarded?
If it's anything like the premier league there will be a dubious goals panel. The broadcaster doesn't decide so they might say own goal to start and then correct it once officially determined.Ok thankyou. In that case, why was it ever awarded as an own goal I wonder. As you say, this is simplified, so I wonder how they worked it out.
I find reffing situations like this fascinating and that's why I'm a member here.![]()
Perhaps not a legal angle, but you can imagine if a goal in one game is given to the attacker then an identical situation in a future game goes down as an own goal. There is a huge amount of money in football betting these days, it would give them a load of grief that they could do without. So it is just easier to say if the shot was on target it is the attacker's goal.I seriously doubt there is any viable legal action the bookies or bettors would have. I can’t imagine a court saying that the league, which has no contract with and gets no revenue from the betting, owes a duty to the bettors or the bookies. I think the goal of objectivity has more to do with all the other pushes for objectivity in the modern game. People choosing to bet (or make books on) something that can be arbitrary do so at their own risk. (Just as the bookies can’t sue the ref who gives a dodgy PK in added time.)
Yes, until recently, a bet has always been nothing more than 'a gentleman's agreement'. The Bookmaker has only been obliged to pay-out on winning bets to preserve reputation (otherwise nobody would trust them and/or bet with them). We have an Independent Organization that arbitrates on contentious bets. The Bookies rely upon 'official data' (such as OPTA) to settle betsI seriously doubt there is any viable legal action the bookies or bettors would have. I can’t imagine a court saying that the league, which has no contract with and gets no revenue from the betting, owes a duty to the bettors or the bookies. I think the goal of objectivity has more to do with all the other pushes for objectivity in the modern game. People choosing to bet (or make books on) something that can be arbitrary do so at their own risk. (Just as the bookies can’t sue the ref who gives a dodgy PK in added time.)