Hey Pinny, since you're a quality sponser here at the soccer forum, how 'bout it?
Grade the "team to lead 1-0" a winner...
And give the +650 bettors a push at least...
:increible
Wicked
Your book is tops I will add, regardless of your grading in this unfortunate matter. :awesom:
Grade the "team to lead 1-0" a winner...
And give the +650 bettors a push at least...
:increible
Wicked
Your book is tops I will add, regardless of your grading in this unfortunate matter. :awesom:
BBC SPORT
Bookies pay out on Spurs 'goal'
THE GOAL THAT WASN'T
Pedro Mendes thought he had scored the winner for Tottenham at Man Utd
A bookmaker will pay out to punters who bet on Pedro Mendes to score the first goal in Tottenham's controversial game against Manchester United.
The match at Old Trafford finished goalless after Mendes' long-range shot was fumbled by home keeper Roy Carroll.
TV replays showed the ball went over the line, but the incident was missed by the referee and his assistant.
William Hill is to honour bets on 20-1 chance Mendes to score first, although rival firm Ladbrokes will not.
Hills spokesman Graham Sharpe admitted only a handful of customers had backed Mendes to score first.
Bets struck at 11-2 on Mendes to score at anytime during the match will also be settled.
"We have decided to pay out to - the admittedly few - customers who would have definitely been on a winner had the goal been given as it quite obviously should have been," said Sharpe.
Meanwhile, Paddy Power bookmakers will refund all losing bets on Spurs to win the match.
The Irish firm is now offering odds of just 7-2 that a video referee is used in the 2005 FA Cup final.
But not everyone will be celebrating, with Britain's biggest bookmaker Ladbrokes refusing to bend the rules.
"As much as we sympathise with punters who backed Spurs, the referee's decision is final," said spokesman Balthazar Fabricius.
"Besides which, if we were to pay out on bad refereeing decisions, we'd be paying out every week. We want better refereeing as much as punters do."
And the William Hill concession does not apply to correct score or outright bet results.
"No-one can say for sure what the final score would have been had the Mendes goal been allowed - after all, in the past United have scored twice in the final minute of a match," said Sharpe.
Bookies pay out on Spurs 'goal'
THE GOAL THAT WASN'T
Pedro Mendes thought he had scored the winner for Tottenham at Man Utd
A bookmaker will pay out to punters who bet on Pedro Mendes to score the first goal in Tottenham's controversial game against Manchester United.
The match at Old Trafford finished goalless after Mendes' long-range shot was fumbled by home keeper Roy Carroll.
TV replays showed the ball went over the line, but the incident was missed by the referee and his assistant.
William Hill is to honour bets on 20-1 chance Mendes to score first, although rival firm Ladbrokes will not.
Hills spokesman Graham Sharpe admitted only a handful of customers had backed Mendes to score first.
Bets struck at 11-2 on Mendes to score at anytime during the match will also be settled.
"We have decided to pay out to - the admittedly few - customers who would have definitely been on a winner had the goal been given as it quite obviously should have been," said Sharpe.
Meanwhile, Paddy Power bookmakers will refund all losing bets on Spurs to win the match.
The Irish firm is now offering odds of just 7-2 that a video referee is used in the 2005 FA Cup final.
But not everyone will be celebrating, with Britain's biggest bookmaker Ladbrokes refusing to bend the rules.
"As much as we sympathise with punters who backed Spurs, the referee's decision is final," said spokesman Balthazar Fabricius.
"Besides which, if we were to pay out on bad refereeing decisions, we'd be paying out every week. We want better refereeing as much as punters do."
And the William Hill concession does not apply to correct score or outright bet results.
"No-one can say for sure what the final score would have been had the Mendes goal been allowed - after all, in the past United have scored twice in the final minute of a match," said Sharpe.
I taped the Tottenham- Manchester United match but haven't watched it yet. I did see the highlights though and that was as bad a call as I've ever seen in a soccer match. There's no doubt that it was a goal but I have some major problems with any sportsbook that pays off or gives any kind of refund on this match.
Officiating in sports today is as bad as it's ever been. The NFL and college football are by far the worst. Instant replay in the NFL has helped but even that needs some retooling. Major League Baseball umpires are awful. They each have their own strike zone and blow tons of calls on the bases. NHL referees swallow their whistles whenever they feel like it. Basketball is a very tough sport to officiate and I think they probably do a better job at that than the other sports I mentioned. Soccer referees blow plenty of penalty kick decisions and the linesman screw up plenty of offside decisions. Bad calls such as the one in the Tottenham- Manchester United game are a part of the game. I wish they weren't because you can be on the right side and get screwed on a bad call.
Sportsbooks should pay on the result. Any shop that does otherwise is setting a bad precedent and opening themselves up to many bettors that will want the book to ignore their own rules when a bad call costs them a bet. I fully realize any shop that does pay on this game as the poster mentioned above is doing it purely for publicity reasons but it is something I hope doesn't become common.
Officiating in sports today is as bad as it's ever been. The NFL and college football are by far the worst. Instant replay in the NFL has helped but even that needs some retooling. Major League Baseball umpires are awful. They each have their own strike zone and blow tons of calls on the bases. NHL referees swallow their whistles whenever they feel like it. Basketball is a very tough sport to officiate and I think they probably do a better job at that than the other sports I mentioned. Soccer referees blow plenty of penalty kick decisions and the linesman screw up plenty of offside decisions. Bad calls such as the one in the Tottenham- Manchester United game are a part of the game. I wish they weren't because you can be on the right side and get screwed on a bad call.
Sportsbooks should pay on the result. Any shop that does otherwise is setting a bad precedent and opening themselves up to many bettors that will want the book to ignore their own rules when a bad call costs them a bet. I fully realize any shop that does pay on this game as the poster mentioned above is doing it purely for publicity reasons but it is something I hope doesn't become common.
