Jackie Bell Ko Final Aborted

[Mosiah]

JACKIE BELL KO FINAL ABORTED - Waterhouse fans, players dispute disallowed goal

Ainsley Walters, Freelance Writer

A policeman points his firearm in reaction to shots being fired while play was stopped during the KSAFA Jackie Bell Knockout final between Waterhouse and Harbour View at the Harbour View Mini Stadium last night.
LAST NIGHT's Jackie Bell Knockout final between defending champions Harbour View and Waterhouse was brought to an end after 77 minutes when shots rang out from the hills overlooking the western stand as Waterhouse fans and players disputed a disallowed goal.
Harbour View, down to 10 men following Jermaine Hue's 55th-minute ejection, were leading the Corporate Area knockout final 1-0 off Kavin Bryan's 32nd-minute goal before pandemonium broke out at the east Kingston venue, sending spectators scurrying from the stands and on to the field of play.
Pressing for the equaliser, Water-house won a free kick to the left of Harbour View's penalty area, which substitute Damion Powell teed-up to kick.
Powell, one of the heroes from Waterhouse's 1-0 semi-final win over Arnett Gardens last Wednesday, fired in a scorcher, which flew high into goal, beating Harbour View goalie Dwayne Miller.
However, as Powell streaked across to the Roxy Williams Stand to celebrate the equaliser, assistant referee Malacho Brown, on the far side, raised his flag, calling back the play.
Referee Karl Tyrell consulted with Brown and immediately signalled a spot-kick, infuriating Waterhouse supporters, a few of whom stormed the field to question the call.
Harbour View chairman Carvel Stewart and security personnel attempted to calm the Waterhouse supporters, who would have none of it and started raining missiles on the field.
After it was obvious the call would not have gone their way, things took a turn for the worse when shots rang out and more bottles flew from out of the stands.
A second barrage of shots was enough for the officials to call off the match and the St John Ambulance team was later seen carrying a spectator, who had fallen and hurt himself during the stampede.
Referees' official, Martin Lyn, told STAR Sports the goal was called off-side as a Waterhouse player, later identified on video replays as Irvino English, had moved directly in front of goalkeeper Miller before Powell had kicked the ball.
Lyn said in addition to being offside, the player had also impeded the goalkeeper, interfering with the play.

A policeman moves to restore order at the Harbour View Mini Stadium last night, while two Harbour View players, Christopher Harvey (left) and Jermaine Taylor, look on. The Jackie Bell KO final was aborted after 77 minutes when gunshots rang out at the venue. - Ricardo Makyn

Spectators scurry from the stands at the Harbour View Mini Stadium last night after shots rang out during the Jackie Bell KO final between Harbour View and Waterhouse. - Ricardo Makyn photos
Teams:
Harbour View: Dwayne Miller, Clifton Waugh, Christopher Harvey, Lance Laing, Kevin Wooley, Richard Edwards, Donald Stewart, Jermaine Hue, Lovel Palmer, Kemar Petrekin, Kavin Bryan. Waterhouse: Maurice Evans, Desmond Breakenridge, Michael Stone, Oneil Thomas, Vincent Earle, Leon Strickland, Jonathan Williams, Jomo Gordon, Irvino English, Damion Williams, Hugh Howell.

[Me]

Mosiah, why did Hue get sent off?

[Mosiah]

Referees' official, Martin Lyn, told STAR Sports the goal was called off-side as a Waterhouse player, later identified on video replays as Irvino English, had moved directly in front of goalkeeper Miller before Powell had kicked the ball.
Lyn said in addition to being offside, the player had also impeded the goalkeeper, interfering with the play.

I have no idea what Lyn is talking about. If Irvino English, the impeder, managed to remain onside but jumped in front of the goalkepper and blocked his view, then no law was broken and the goal should stand. However, the assistant referee felt that he was in an offside position when he jumped in front of the goalkeeper, as if to head the ball, but didn't. That would mean that he interfered with the play (by impeding the goalie).

So, there is no "in addition" here. Being in an offside position does not mean that a player is offside. Had English not "impeded" the goalie, or distracted him in any way, offside or not, then no offside call should have been made. Slight but very important distinction.

Karl?

[Mosiah]

Erm, he spoke out of turn.

No, he criticised the way the referee was doing his job. He did not address the ref directly, but was overheard. Not a biggie. The Harbour View supporters did not resort to hooliganism.

[Karl]

I have no idea what Lyn is talking about. If Irvino English, the impeder, managed to remain onside but jumped in front of the goalkepper and blocked his view, then no law was broken and the goal should stand. However, the assistant referee felt that he was in an offside position when he jumped in front of the goalkeeper, as if to head the ball, but didn't. That would mean that he interfered with the play (by impeding the goalie).

So, there is no "in addition" here. Being in an offside position does not mean that a player is offside. Had English not "impeded" the goalie, or distracted him in any way, offside or not, then no offside call should have been made. Slight but very important distinction.

Karl?

Correct!

..but may I ask you as one who was at the game; in your opinion goal or no goal i.e. based on what you saw, in your opinion, was the goalie impeded or no?

[Mosiah]

Okay, remember now, I am not exactly unbiased here.

But what I do remember is, the shot, a reasonably powerful one, went directly over the goalie's head, between his arms. I was surprised by this because it seemed like a pretty routine push over the cross bar, if not a clean collection by the goalie. It was not one he had to dive to at all. But English had run across the goal and leapt in front of him. He did not touch the ball but certainly, that must have been the reason why the goalie did not save cleanly. In anticipating a header from English, he just flailed his arms as he had no idea where the ball would be going had English headed it so close to the goal.

I was not looking for offside and I doubt anyone in the entire stadium was thinking about that, apart from the assistant referee. So, I initially thought it was a goal, but was not surprised when they called it back.

I have not seen any replays yet, but persons who have have all said it was a clear offside.

Hope I made sense.

[Karl]

Okay, remember now, I am not exactly unbiased here.

But what I do remember is, the shot, a reasonably powerful one, went directly over the goalie's head, between his arms. I was surprised by this because it seemed like a pretty routine push over the cross bar, if not a clean collection by the goalie. It was not one he had to dive to at all. But English had run across the goal and leapt in front of him. He did not touch the ball but certainly, that must have been the reason why the goalie did not save cleanly. In anticipating a header from English, he just flailed his arms as he had no idea where the ball would be going had English headed it so close to the goal.

I was not looking for offside and I doubt anyone in the entire stadium was thinking about that, apart from the assistant referee. So, I initially thought it was a goal, but was not surprised when they called it back.

I have not seen any replays yet, but persons who have have all said it was a clear offside.

Hope I made sense.

mmmm????

Sounds like goal!
What you said made it appear the goalie just missed the ball... GOAL!

...or the 'infringement' occurred with the player 6 or less yards directly in front of and obstructing the goalie... No GOAL!!!

Which is it? mmmmm?????

[OJ]

if he is in an offside position and impedes the play whats the argument?

[OJ]

was english in an offside position?

[Mosiah]

The latter! I'm saying if he (English) was not interfering with the play, the goalie would have made a routine save. But because English had jumped in front of him, he did not.

NO GOAL!!!

[Mosiah]

He looked like he was in an offside position. To me, he was the closest person to the goalie (goal line, to be strict). Remember, it was a direct freekick, so hardly likely for any player to move after the kick and remain onside. This wasn't a cross.

[Mosiah]

dunno!

[Karl]

The latter! I'm saying if he (English) was not interfering with the play, the goalie would have made a routine save. But because English had jumped in front of him, he did not.

NO GOAL!!!

Got yuh!

[Lionpaw]

After seeing the footage being replayed over and over again tonight, I have come to agreement with the assistant ref. He was absolutely correct in calling offside. Please remember that I am unbiased and perhaps would have been more than happy to see HVIEW lose, however, fair is fair. When the free kick was taken, English was offside and his jump definately impeded the goalkeeper. The linesman deserves an award for spotting that out as many wouldn't have seen that and made the correct call. Peter Prendegrast appeared on Eye on Sports, with the rule book, and the proof was in the pudding. His book(FIFA RULE BOOK) ends all arguments, as the illustration couldn't have been more decisive. The illustration was directly parallel to how the players on the field were standing.

After watching Sports Commentary and Eye On Sports, I have come to the conclusion that Oral Tracey is merely a comedian and should not be taken seriously. He was of the opinion that the ref should have allowed the goal because it would've "made the game nicer".

[Mosiah]

I just saw the footage myself and it was clearly offside. In fact, no rule book need be consulted. It was a simple offside call that the most ignorant and biased of persons could make or agree to. English was standing, not even running, in an offside position, directly in front of the goalkeeper. the ball flew over English's head and past an outstretched arm of the goalie. Straight offside! The easiest call an assistant could make!

Before I saw the footage I was listening to Oral Tracey's radio program where he was talking nonsense about referee's interpretation and all sorts of junk. There is no interpretation here. In fact, if one should teach a 6 year old about offside, this is the footage one would use. It could not be any simpler and clearer that it was offside.

Oral was also talking about referees should make the call with some awareness of what could take place having done so. More crap from somebody who should know better and has been given the opportunity to influence minds. So the refs must be Ms Cleos, able to predict how the crowd will react after they make a certain call. So, if the call might result in people losing their lives, then they should not make it. That is the height of nonsense and we need not go any further with that.

The other piece of nonsense came from Waterhouse's coach who said the correct decision would be to replay the match on a neutral ground. Does he realise that it was the away team that caused the disruption?!? Forumites must realise that Harbour View's supporters, all 10 of us, are practically incapable of disrupting anything. Any ground accessible to Waterhouse supporters can be the scene of some sort of hooligan behaviour. Let's just call a spade a spade!