Guiseley v Braintree controversy

[itszamora]

Did anyone else pick up on this? I first read it about it here - basically, Braintree were leading 1-0 and kicked the ball out for one of their players to receive treatment. In giving the ball back, a Guiseley player "accidentally" chips the keeper and scores. And Guiseley refuse to let Braintree walk in a goal in response.

Video is below. Thoughts? I'm not convinced the goal was an accident - and none of Guiseley's players or fans (including the scorer) exactly cover themselves in glory by celebrating. Pretty disgraceful IMO, would be surprised if teams show them much sympathy for the rest of the season and possibly longer.

 

[Change at Barnham]

Cheats. They should have allowed Braintree a walk in goal. The commentators were biased saying the keeper made no effort to stop it.
It finished 1-1.

 

[Stat Brother]

Play to the whistle and stop fookin about for cheating footballers.

No team of mine would ever kick the ball out.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

played to the whistle,i have only recalled Albion not giving the ball back once in the 91 semi home to Millwall...hmmm undecided...

it's not cricket...

 

[Neil]

Another grey area that the FA hasn't sorted out..
This has happened two times before that I know of and the endng has been differentboth times.
Once before the referee made the team concede a goal from the kick off and another time the referee gave a foul throw

 

[Ludensian Gull]

Play to the whistle and stop fookin about for cheating footballers.

No team of mine would ever kick the ball out.

This is the correct answer as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

The only thing I would argue about is whether or not it was a shot, I'm fairly happy to say I believe that was a shot. There was no need to put any elevation in the ball at all, but he's lofted it high over the goalkeeper's head which to me looked intentional. If it was a shot then I believe they should have allowed an uncontested goal to balance it out because that's poor sportsmanship/general decency. The goalkeeper could have done more, so you can make an argument either way.

 

[Pondicherry]

No goal -ball was in motion when the kick was taken. Should have been made to re-take the kick. Ref got it wrong.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Cheats. They should have allowed Braintree a walk in goal. The commentators were biased saying the keeper made no effort to stop it.
It finished 1-1.

Is correct. Ridiculous that they didn't allow a walk in goal.

 

[Da Man Clay]

No goal -ball was in motion when the kick was taken. Should have been made to re-take the kick. Ref got it wrong.

Came from a throw in.

 

[Igzilla]

No goal -ball was in motion when the kick was taken. Should have been made to re-take the kick. Ref got it wrong.

It wasn't a free kick, the Guiseley player received the ball from a throw in. It was definitely a goal. Question is should Guiseley have let Braintree score a free goal in return?

 

[studio150]

No goal -ball was in motion when the kick was taken. Should have been made to re-take the kick. Ref got it wrong.

The goalscorer received the ball from a throw in.

I dont know what the ref was doing in running to the linesman, as the rules are clear unless a foul throw has been indicated the goal must stand. The next step is whether the Guisley manager should have told his team to immediately concede a goal from the kick off.

Why on earth did the scorer immediately put his arms up in celebration this to me is a indication of that was a shot as opposed to an overhit return pass.

I would expect the knock on effect from this to be that any team playing Guisley will refuse to kick the ball out for a player to receive treatment.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

I really don't think anyone can blame the referee, he had no choice other than to award Guisley a goal. The contention is whether or not that was a deliberate shot on goal, and whether or not the Guisley players wanted to stand to one side when Braintree kicked off, and allow them to cancel out that goal with one of their own. There is nothing in the rule book to say that they had to allow the latter to happen though.

 

[Stat Brother]

I would expect the knock on effect from this to be that any team playing Guisley will refuse to kick the ball out for a player to receive treatment.

Which is exactly how it should be as the players are NOT the referee, and they don't have role to play in the running of a match.

For that matter they also aren't junior doctors, school nurses, surgeons, trauma specialist, cardiologists, physiotherapists or any other form of medical practitioners.

 

[johnny jigsaw]

Anyone else notice ex-Albion legend Liam Dickinson in that footage, now plying his trade for Guiseley?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Goal



Get on with it and stop whining.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Which is exactly how it should be as the players are NOT the referee, and they don't have role to play in the running of a match.

For that matter they also aren't junior doctors, school nurses, surgeons, trauma specialist, cardiologists, physiotherapists or any other form of medical practitioners.

Well they are only semi-professional footballers, so some of them may be in the occupations that you mention!

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Anyone else notice ex-Albion legend Liam Dickinson in that footage, now plying his trade for Guiseley?

Began his career at Guisley, and may well end it there too. Surprised to see that he is still only 30 though. Amused to see Wikipedia list his position as striker, defender, and midfielder!

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Which is exactly how it should be as the players are NOT the referee, and they don't have role to play in the running of a match.

For that matter they also aren't junior doctors, school nurses, surgeons, trauma specialist, cardiologists, physiotherapists or any other form of medical practitioners.

Actors?

 

[supaseagull]

Cheats. They should have allowed Braintree a walk in goal. The commentators were biased saying the keeper made no effort to stop it.
It finished 1-1.

How can they be cheats? They scored a perfectly legal goal. The keeper was to blame for letting it go over his head and for standing there like a lemon