blades blog Should we sue Stu?

Posted: April 29th 2009
Click here to feedback

In an attempt to become the most litigious club in English football would it be pertinent for the Blades to sue referee Stuart Attwell should Utd, Birmingham and Reading finish on the same number of points this weekend?

Mischievous maybe, but consider this perfectly reasonable scenario. Some might say it’s the most likely eventuality for resurgent Reading to beat Brum at home and us to clutch a draw at Palace – leaving three teams finishing the season on 80 points. In such circumstances it’s presumably Reading who sail through to the Premiership via their superior goal difference and the second automatic spot.

Mmmmmm . . . . but wait a minute. Were not Reading awarded a so-called ‘phantom goal’ back at the start of the season when they drew 2-2 with Watford at Vicarage Road.  Was not a goal awarded when it appeared fairly obvious to the rest of the ground that the ball had actually crossed the line three yards wide of the goalmouth? Was not the ref the young Stuart Attwell who went on to stagger like a helpless child through the nuclear fallout of the rest of his season?

It’s easy to criticise the ref and I know that his decision is final so let’s not castrate the youngster and deter anyone from becoming a ref. The football authorities should protect him, for he knows not what he does yet. But here we go again chaps – football leaving itself wide open to an independent legal challenge because it can’t be bothered to identify problems and tackle them head on.

In this case no rules have been broken. The match was played, the ref took the linesman’s advice and the match finished with a 2-2 scoreline though only three goals had been scored. Even though a goal was not actually scored it was given because we all accept the ref’s doing his best and, in taking to the pitch, we sign up to his ruling over the match, be he wrong or right. But we all know it’s not really right is it. In fact I would say that in the riot-fuelled 80s it’s decisions like that which used to incite coin throwing, fighting and pitch invasions.

Please let’s have video evidence. It’s simple and successful in rugby league and unequivocal 99.9% of the time. In the 0.1% of the time it’s not, most fans accept that we’ve done everything we can to determine whether or not a ball fully crosses a line amid squirming bodies and flailing legs. And don’t tell me it’s going to hold the game up. A decision like that needed at Vicarage Road last September would have taken all of two replays and five seconds to determine the truth.

I hope there’s no such talk of legal action after Sunday but I really wish football wouldn’t leave chasms in its rulings through which lawyers can drive four-wheeled vehicles. There’s too much money and too many livelihoods at stake and if we haven’t learned at least that from Tevezgate, then we’ve learned bugger all.