Gallagher's Goal

[Gaffer]

Can someone clear this up? DB11 maybe?

The ball was put into play by the Ref, Gallagher did send it towards goal, it went it, should it have stood?

Just listened to Pearson on the BBC's website, agree with what he had to say; If we hadn't had won, questions would have been asked.

Doesn't really matter thanks to a certain Mr. King

[dpjfox]

the ref was terrible . a real "homer"

[ThorpeAstleyFox]

Can someone clear this up? DB11 maybe?

The ball was put into play by the Ref, Gallagher did send it towards goal, it went it, should it have stood?

Just listened to Pearson on the BBC's website, agree with what he had to say; If we hadn't had won, questions would have been asked.

Doesn't really matter thanks to a certain Mr. King

Technically it was a good goal and as far as I am aware the referee should have allowed it to stand. However, I personally have no problem whatsoever with the refereee on his decision. Gallagher had clearly not intended to score - his intention was to pass it back to their 'keeper as etiquette dictates in such situations. To have accepted the goal could have had some knock-on effects which would not have been good for the game nor the club. Most fans are quick to call for referees to use some common sense and discretion and for me that is exactly what the ref' has done. All that said, I'd love to know how he justified his decision because by the laws of the game I do not believe that he had any grounds?

[JoeyB]

it should have been a goal, the ball was in play, and the keeper kind of messed up.

Then galle went for it again straight after

[Trav Le Bleu]

Probably should have been a goal, but as Stringer said, had it stood, City would probably gifted a goal the other way. At least, I'd like to think they would have.

[Podge]

Probably should have been a goal, but as Stringer said, had it stood, City would probably gifted a goal the other way. At least, I'd like to think they would have.

That would have been nice, purely so Gallagher could have had a 70 yarder to look back on.

[Matt]

I'd love DB11 to clear this up, tell us the rules on the matter, I've always understood it was the right thing to give the ball back to the opposition but never thought it was right, especially when the majority of the time a player has just gone down to stop play, I've always said the game should just play on - no giving the ball back...infact unless it's definetly a serious 'proper' injury don't put the ball out.

Anyway i'd love to see DB11 explain this one, could we potentially see him admit a referee has made a mistake for the first time?

I bet he'll miss this thread coincidently.

[Bert]

The ref has no right to disallow it. The ball was put out of play so an injured player could receive treatment. It wasn't a foul or anything like that. Gallagher was simply offered the chance to kick the ball back to the keeper and he did so.

This has happened before in a league game a few years back, and the team then offered the opposition a goal in return.

[Webbo]

The ref didn't make a mistake, he deliberately disallowed because it wasn't in the spirit of the game, and quite right to. You shouldn't try to score when you're passing the ball back to the opposition. If we had conceded a goal like that there would be 9 threads on here calling the opposition and the ref all sorts of cvnts.

Having said all that it was a brilliant piece of skill from Gallagher and good entertainment.

[Guest Bilo]

Disappointed for Gallagher that it didn't stand to be honest, as it was an awesome shot, and couldn't understand why the referee disallowed it. Luckily it didn't matter in the end but I'm fairly sure there would have been something of an inquest on here if King hadn't got the winner. Also, a 70 yard goal might have given us more than 70 seconds on the Football League Show.

[purpleronnie]

But did he mean it? Was he just getting back to their goalkeeper?

Anyway I dont understand why peoplke think it should stand as the poster above stated its not in the spirit of the game, if a preston player had scored it against us everyone would be saying 'oh great decision ref' 'it should never stand'.

[Bert]

To be honest, I think if Preston had've scored it, the ref would've let it stand.

[Leicfox]

But did he mean it? Was he just getting back to their goalkeeper?

I dont think he meant it, he just over hit it. If it was anyones fault it was Lonergan's for getting caught out. The 2nd effort i think he did mean and he nearly scored too.

Anyway would of served Lonergan right if it did stand, for doing this to us..

[flanimal]

It's no big deal the Gallagher goal was ruled a non-goal, if we had to let them score, then it would've been a waste of time anyway, so it didn't bother me. But, the Vaughan goal - that's the one that surprised me. That was a definite goal as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest Mee-9]

Should of been a goal. Makes the ref look abit of a tit though if he lets it stand.

Who cares anyway, We won and are in the playoffs.

There was nothing wrong with vaughan's goal, the defender and keeper collided.

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

Sounds like another case of the ref making the rules up as he goes along. Was the incident shown on the FL Show? I watched it but unless I fell asleep I didnt see that incident shown.

[Mee]

Sounds like another case of the ref making the rules up as he goes along. Was the incident shown on the FL Show? I watched it but unless I fell asleep I didnt see that incident shown.

Nope, it wasn't mate, nice little chip thought, but at least we still won

[samjohnson]

The laws state that the referee puts the ball back into play when the ball TOUCHES THE GROUND; therefore, it was a perfectly good goal. I really dont undertstand why it was dissallowed

[Guest parky0607]

I'm not a ref but I think by the rules of football the goal should have stood, but he should've received a yellow card for bad sportsmanship, still though, great entertainment and loved how wild the fans went hahaha

[unreachable]

The goal should have been given and we should then have allowed Preston to equalise.

Since goals scored become relevant if teams have equal goal differences disallowing the "goal" could change final table positions and Play-Off positions.

Whether a goal is allowed can't be the subject of negotiation between managers and officials - the Rules/Laws don't permit it. It would be interesting to see what the referee's assessor says in his report - the referee should be suspended?

[leicesterfox86]

To be honest, I think if Preston had've scored it, the ref would've let it stand.

Very True

[DB11]

I haven't seen it or anything - I wasn't even listening to the game on the radio.

However, from what I've heard, yeah it should have been a goal.

I remember going to a talk by an ex-Football League referee who did Millwall vs. Leeds once and he said that he gave a drop ball and the Millwall player said he'd kick it back, but when he dropped it he ran forward trying to score so he stopped play, cautioned him for USB (he defended it saying that he deemed lying to him as USB and tha laws alwayy say "in the opinion of the refere..." therefore he was not wrong) and restarted with an IDFK.

In this case, the restart was another drop ball so I cannot see why.

If the referee had allowed the goal, and Leicester didn't allow Preston to score, I reckon that the game would have got a bit hard to referee so the ref did the best thing for the game.

[unreachable]

I withdraw my view that it should have been allowed - I was speaking from ignorance!

Unsporting behaviour by Gallagher seems to be a very relevant issue as Webbo and DB11 and others say. I amused myself googling and have found some very interesting (at least to me) instances of dropped balls and USB. Differing decisions made but obviously each instance is going to be different depending on what ref and players said/agreed etc

http://www.sheffieldfc.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=83&func=view&catid=4&id=736

http://www.cambstimes.co.uk/content/cambstimes/sport/story.aspx?brand=CATOnline&category=SportFootball&tBrand=HertsCambsOnline&tCategory=SportCAT&itemid=WEED14%20Apr%202010%2016%3A40%3A49%3A177

http://www.thefootballforum.net/index.php?/topic/153642-passing-the-ball-back-resulting-in-a-goal/

[Houdini Logic]

I spoke to a Preston fan in the hotel on Saturday and he said Pearson told the 4th official to allow Preston to score a goal to cancel it out.

Much more sensible than allowing the Ref to ignore the rulebook

[unreachable]

I spoke to a Preston fan in the hotel on Saturday and he said Pearson told the 4th official to allow Preston to score a goal to cancel it out.

Much more sensible than allowing the Ref to ignore the rulebook

What about the possible Unsporting Behaviour point - that's in the "rulebook"? Perhaps the ref would have had to have blown his whistle before the ball went into the net to stop play for Unsporting Behaviour and the ref hadn't done that.