I've thoroughly enjoyed us being the surprising main story on the BBC Sport website all day, and slightly less surprisingly that we've being talked about on TalkSport ad infinitum. But I've been slightly irritated at the tosh that has been talked by some, especially former refeeres who seem to think the whole thing is quite funny.
Lets go through some of the tosh point by point.
1) Should the game be replayed?
It can have surprised no-one that it hasn't taken long for the league to say no. I think this was made especially easy as we went on record saying we weren't actively seeking this outcome and the only person who was in favour was Steve Coppell. No surprise either way. We'll take the point thanks.
But there is precedent for this sort of thing stemming from the Arsenal v Sheffield United cup game seven years ago when Kanu ran down the wing instead of giving the ball back after an injury. It was a slightly different scenairo and both managers were in favour but really ours warrants more of a replay than that ever did because Overmars did actually score from Kanu's cross. I wonder what the league would've done had Aidy had agreed with Coppell?
2) Should Reading have allowed us to score or should they allow the 'Orns a goal head start when we meet at the Mad Stad?
If teams start doing this for incorrectly given goals then where does it stop? Is there much difference between that and an incorrectly given penalty that leads to a goal, or a free kick on the edge of the box. If the team its awarded to know its been given in error do they then head back into their own half and replicate the foul to even things up after they've scored, and what happens if they don't score. Are they still required to even it up then?
Again there is precedent of teams allowing others to score. Leicester did it last season against Forest in the Carling Cup. Interesting to note how sporting the football league found it that day.
Both the Arsenal and Leicester examples are different ways of dealing with the whole area of organised sportsmanship which goes against the old cliche of play 'til the whistle.
But the reason this became a cliche (as with most) is that its a good one. Because if we don't do it we get some ridiculous examples of organised sportsmanship such as if you see a player on the floor for whatever reason, kick the ball out and then negoitiate between yourselves and the ref as to the restart.
A great example of this was Mariappa on Saturday who went down, got up again and then went down again. And Reading put the ball out. Now, I may not be a paramedic but even I can guess that if you are able to stand up, your injury is unlikely to be life threatening, even if you have to wait a couple of minutes for treatment. Yet they could have gone on to score, or better still we could've got the ball back and gone on to score. Mariappa would've got up eventually or would've just wanted 'til play had stopped.
If the ref deems an injury to be bad enough he has the option to blow up, but everyone seems to have forgotten this. If its not clear who had possesion then he can invite both teams to challenge for the ball. If one team had the ball at the time the ref can just invite them to resume from the drop ball. Simple, and far easier than the I'll throw it to a defender and he'll then kick it up to your keeper and we'll then start playing properly again.
3. Should there be video evidence?
We've now got the technology that within seconds tv viewers know whether its a goal or not. Why restrict this? Just because you won't be able to replicate it across all football right down to parks games? Well I've not seen hawkeye used at my local tennis and cricket clubs but they don't seem bothered. It wouldn't hold up play any more than the referee consulting his linesman.
4. What should happen now?
Full marks to the club for trying to get Eustace rescinded as the scorer. Why should he be saddled with a goal he had nothing to do with. I can't see the league agreeing to award it to Attwell or Bannister but its worth a try just to emphasise the point.
As for Attwell and Bannister, Jay DeMerit made an excellent point on TalkSport that the equivilent act to this is a player hitting another player in the face. In fact I'd say it goes as far as Cantona jumping into the crowd. It shouldn't just be treated lightly and forgotten about.
If at the end of the season we find ourselves missing out on the playoffs by a goal difference of one (hello Wolves) then this stupid decision could cost us around £60million. And there's nothing remotely funny about that.
