The Football Association set a precedent, and it is the first time that a post-match review has publicly decided that both goals of a team were wrong. In the 7th round of the Chinese Super League this season, Meizhou Hakka 1-2 Shanghai Port made up the match, and the two goals scored by SIPG were determined by the Football Association review team to be violations after 14 days, which was a mistake by the referee.
In the Chinese Super League, it is indeed very rare for a team to score an illegal goal in a match and are considered invalid goals. Although the score cannot be changed after the 3 points are taken, the Football Association's evaluation conclusion is embarrassing for the beneficiaries.
The most critical thing is that these two misjudgments are not only related to the ownership of the Chinese Super League championship this season, but also affect the relegation circle. From 0 points to 3 points, SIPG overtook Shanghai Shenhua and jumped to the top of the standings in one fell swoop. Over there, Meizhou Hakka, which is in the relegation zone, has 3 points to 0 points, plus a red card suspension has made the team's relegation even more critical.
The Football Association's comment caused dissatisfaction on the harbor side. Some SIPG fans expressed doubts about the review and sent screenshots saying that they had complained to the General Administration. In this screenshot, in response to the first goal, SIPG fans questioned whether the Football Association's use of "other channels" to determine whether the goal of Harbour was invalid was compliant (below).
In fact, SIPG fans confuse the game with the aftermath. When the game is in progress, the referee cannot use the video of other channels of the third party as the basis for the decision, because this may obviously affect the result of the game, so it is definitely not allowed and must be banned.
On the contrary, after the game, on the premise that the result of the game cannot be changed, other channels are used to judge the correctness of the referee's decision. Not only cannot this be banned, but it should also be promoted. Some people struggle with this because the video from this other channel breaks their psychological defenses - the original live video is blurry and can't clearly see whether it is handball, so someone can have the confidence to insist that it is not handball.
Of course, the best thing for the Football Association to do is to give videos from other channels when announcing the results of the review. However, according to my personal judgment, the video of other channels seen by the Football Association should be (pictured above).
For Harbour's second goal, the logic of the complaining SIPG fan was a bit exaggerated. Obviously, Jiang Guangtai hugged the opponent and didn't let the opponent run in front of Wu Lei to clear the siege (below), but he pulled the fall of the SIPG player in the 9th minute of the game. And from this, it is concluded that according to the referee's penalty scale, there was no foul before this goal.
In fact, the SIPG fan was right, the referee on duty really didn't think that the goal in the 9th minute was a penalty, and he didn't blow Wu Lei's goal away. But a foul is a foul, and it's not a foul if the referee doesn't blow it. What was the original intention of the Football Association in the post-match review? It's not about protecting the shortcomings, it's about pointing out the mistakes in the penalty and making our league improve bit by bit.
For this superficial perception of football, I'm embarrassed to complain! It's unbelievable.
It is worth mentioning that on July 4, the SIPG fan has submitted a complaint and is waiting to be processed (pictured above).