Ah Mr Holt- we've been expecting you...

[Scarface]

Fair points from Holt, can't understand why people are disagreeing with them. Anyone with a brain knows that was morally wrong, it was a shocking goal to accept and the players should be embarassed like I said before.

Who would accept a stolen present when it quite obviously IS stolen? Its ridiculous.

What he said.

Fans can be so biased it's embarressing. Had the goal gone against us, we'd all be saying exactly the same about the opposition. Hunt's and Coppell's explanations/excuses were pathetic.

[IMAMATEOFJOVSKY]

I agree with OH as well - the exposure this has got has been immense- we could of capitalised on that if we had done the right thing- I also do not believe for one minute that Coppell didnt discuss it at half time - He said that because he knew that after the game then there was nothing that could have been done-

Im sure that we would all have been sitting humbly by if it had been a goal that Watford scored

[brendywendy]

OH>>>>>>>>>FINERAIN>>>>>>>>>>scarface

[Millsy]

Fair points from Holt, can't understand why people are disagreeing with them. Anyone with a brain knows that was morally wrong, it was a shocking goal to accept and the players should be embarassed like I said before.

Who would accept a stolen present when it quite obviously IS stolen? Its ridiculous.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with Holt's article.

The inability of us fans to just put our hands up and accept it was a bit embarrassing exacerbates the embarrassment. We can't cry every time someone criticises us, even if it is Holt.

I think criticism is fair and it's NOT an outrage to be pointing this out.

Havign said this, I do actually stand by accepting the goal. As I've said on one of the trillion threads on this subject, there was so much confusion and delay over the goal given I don't reasonably expect any Reading player knew enough of what was going on to make a definite stand (unlike Robbie Fowler's penalty honesty against Arsenal for example).

BUT I accept this is somewhat of an dodgy area... i.e. it is *plausible* that no Reading player said anything, but it doesn't mean for sure that they coudn't i.e. it is equally plausible that 2 or 3 players knew 100% that the goal was wrong and could well have made a stand. There is no definite clear cut case either way and only the players themselves will know.

So all in all: our actions were defendable and explicable, and especially after offering the replay we can hold our heads up high...
but we have also got to able to accept quite valid criticism too.

[Hampshire Royal]

I'm not sure what we've done to deserve criticism, to be honest. I received a text from the club soon after the goal which said words to the effect 'it didn't look like a goal, but the ref gave it'. It's not as if we cheated to get given the goal - nobody celebrated until after it was obvious that the ref had given the goal, and then only in a muted way. Most of the players cannot have known whether it was a goal or not, they may have guessed it, but it is my opinion that the majority just did not know. At half-time, maybe they were told, or maybe not. Coppell came out immediately calling for goal-line technology and said he would accept a replay of the game. The club came over to me as being embarrassed that the goal stood, as did the fans who post on this forum.

It's sort of comforting that the Usual Suspects on here are saying that this incident paints Reading in the colours of Satan. What would they have said had it been the other way round? I reckon it would be something like 'we have to accept the goal; our players disgraced themselves when they complained to the ref; we're 0-1 down and Coppell should be sacked'.

As for Oliver Holt, well his only job is to sell papers - in doing this he conveniently doesn't spot the cheating that is a part of Chelsea's game, and has been since Mourinho became manager.

[STAR Voice]

For the record, the below text has been sent to Mr Holt and just about every other media outlet who'd been blackening our name in this story :

........
It's quite amazing that the Reading players are somehow being portrayed as the villains in this whole sorry episode. Any blame should be laid fairly and squarely onto the heads of the officials. The situation was so confused that no-one knew exactly what was happening - if you've seen the incident you'll know that in a very crowded goalmouth there were a number of shots in quick succession - including one against the bar. The Reading players were heading back to face a goal-kick when the "goal" was awarded - and significantly none of them appealed for a goal at any time. They just did what every other team in the land would have done - assumed that the goal was given for one of the shots or when the ball ht the bar.

Yes, giving a goal away would have been a nice gesture if anyone had realised just what had happened at the time, but the fact that the few such gestures that have been made in the past (e.g. Robbie Fowler's deliberate penalty miss) are still remembered after so many years shows just how rare they are.

I defy any player or any supporter to swear that they would expect them or their team to react in a different way in the same circumstance - especially at a time when players are being urged to play to the whistle, to show respect for officials and when only the team captain can talk to the referee.

The biggest paradox is that everyone who went to the game is convinced that without this goal Reading would have won. Watford were under considerable pressure before the "goal", but there's nothing like a burning sense of injustice to motivate a team and a crowd, and this considerably lifted Watford to make a game of it. In addition, after half-time, when the referee realised what had happened, every 50-50 decision went in favour of Watford, no doubt because subconsciously Attwell was trying to even things up. This includes a perfectly good goal being disallowed and a stonewall penalty for a trip on Chris Armstrong being turned down. As I say, everyone who was there considers this to be 2 points lost because of a refereeing error, not a point gained because of one!

[Skyline]

Have to say, that message would have read a lot better if the last paragraph hadn't been included.

[brendywendy]

well done

now holt will know hes got to us again!

[John 3:16]

Let's be clear about one thing in the furore over the phantom goal awarded to Reading in their 2-2 draw with Watford on Saturday - if one player in Reading's side had any real courage or honesty, it wouldn't have stood.

It's as simple as that. I've heard all the garbage from Reading manager Steve Coppell about how it's not up to the opposition to right a wrong from the officials.

Well, I'm sorry, but when it's as blatant as this, I think it is.

When an injustice is that obvious and that unfathomable, the merest modicum of fair play demands that someone in Reading colours speaks out.

I can only think Watford boss Aidy Boothroyd was speaking out of some sort of misguided loyalty to Coppell and his team when he said: "If someone stops you and gives you a present, you don't say 'no', do you?"

Er, well, actually Aidy, when the present's got 'stolen' written on it in large letters, yes, you do.

Is that it? He can do better. What a complete prat of a man. Surely his colleagues are all laughing at him now too. I mean, it's just embarrassing for the bloke. I actually cringe for him when I read his articles now.

[Bill Oddie's Beard]

Let's be clear about one thing in the furore over the phantom goal awarded to Reading in their 2-2 draw with Watford on Saturday - if one player in Reading's side had any real courage or honesty, it wouldn't have stood.

It's as simple as that. I've heard all the garbage from Reading manager Steve Coppell about how it's not up to the opposition to right a wrong from the officials.

Well, I'm sorry, but when it's as blatant as this, I think it is.

When an injustice is that obvious and that unfathomable, the merest modicum of fair play demands that someone in Reading colours speaks out.

I can only think Watford boss Aidy Boothroyd was speaking out of some sort of misguided loyalty to Coppell and his team when he said: "If someone stops you and gives you a present, you don't say 'no', do you?"

Er, well, actually Aidy, when the present's got 'stolen' written on it in large letters, yes, you do.

Is that it? He can do better. What a complete prat of a man. Surely his colleagues are all laughing at him now too. I mean, it's just embarrassing for the bloke. I actually cringe for him when I read his articles now.

Exactly what I said, he just sounds desperate for a cheap dig.

[paultheroyal]

Unfortunately I agree with him. If we had done the "decent" thing then we would be being applauded for our fair play, we just look like cheats at the moment. Just my opinion........

Ditto

[soggy biscuit]

Holt has got a fair point I think.

The anti Holt brigade on here wouldn't dare say so though......

[brendywendy]

Holt has got a fair point I think.

The anti Holt brigade on here wouldn't dare say so though......

is there a pro holt brigade?

are you in it by any chance?

if hed said anything correct id have no touble agreeing, he just didnt

[John 3:16]

One player, or even half the team, saying that it wasn't a goal would have made zero difference. The goal was given. Remember when Robbie Fowler fell over after jumping over Seaman for Liverpool? Penalty given but zero contact had been made. Fowler kept telling the referee that it wasn't a penalty, but too late, it had been given and he wasn't about to take it back. And if anybody says he deliberately missed so we should have given them a goal... Who would like to score an own goal? or tell someone else to score an own goal? Not going to happen in a zillion years.

[Bill Oddie's Beard]

Holt has got a fair point I think.

The anti Holt brigade on here wouldn't dare say so though......

It's not so much his point, but the way he goes about making it that I object to.

[philM]

I also do not believe for one minute that Coppell didnt discuss it at half time - He said that because he knew that after the game then there was nothing that could have been done-

Agreed, I thought the way SC claimed to not know it wasn't a goal until the end of the game was a fairly pathetic attempt to cover his back in light of the supposed pressure at half time to concede one at the start of the 2nd half.

I suppose we should be grateful Sky didn't query him any further.

[Royalee]

I'm fairly vocal in my resent for Coppell and want this season out of the way and for him to go ASAP, but even I have to say that Holt needs a good shoeing. What an absolutely rubbish story by a third rate journalist at best - heaven forbid Chelsea ever try to take advantage of poor officiating or dare to cheat.

[1960]

One of my memories of last year was when Liverpool played Everton. Carragher twice rugby-tackled Lescott to the ground in the area, the second time as he was in the act of shooting. The fool Clatenberg gave nothing. A clear refereeing mistake. Did Carragher or the Liverpool team in general come clean to the ref? Yes, sorry It was a penalty ref. You've gotta give it.

In the same game Kuyt launched a chest-high two-footed assault on Neville (?) Yellow card. Obviously another refereeing mistake, so Holt would expect Kuyt to own up and tell the ref it was a red card.

Just two incidents from one game. Hundreds before and since. So why suddenly is this the game when the players should come clean?

[Silver Fox]

Anyone with a brain knows that was morally wrong.

What's your opinion though?

[SCIAG]

I'm with 1960 here. There our literally COUNTLESS cases of refs making blatant mistakes. See: Cisse's sending off against Chelsea last year. Pretty obvious Pizzaro dived. I wonder what Holt has to say about that?