International football match Barbados - Grenada 1994
The football game between the national teams of Barbados and Grenada on January 27, 1994 was a qualifier for the Caribbean Cup 1994 and particularly noteworthy because it was at times in the interests of both teams to score an own goal. In addition, a team had to defend both goals in one phase in order to prevent goals as well as own goals by the opponent.
The reason for this was the rule that group matches went into overtime in the event of a tie, along with a peculiar implementation of the golden goal rule . The British newspaper The Guardian called the game "one of the strangest football games of all time".
background
The 1994 Caribbean Championship was the fifth edition of the tournament and was held in Trinidad and Tobago that year . In the spring of 1994, the qualification for this championship began, with Barbados , Grenada and Puerto Rico in the 1st group. In each group, each team played once against each other team ( round-robin tournament ). Only the best team qualified for the tournament. As a rule experiment, the organizers decided to implement the Golden Goal in a certain way: each qualification game was extended by 15 minutes twice if the outcome was a tie. The first goal in extra time not only decided the game, but also counted twice. This should compensate the teams for not having the opportunity to score more than one goal as a goal difference in the shortened overtime. If extra time is goalless, a penalty shoot-out should follow.
The first Group 1 qualifier took place in Barbados. The home team lost 1-0 to Puerto Rico. Two days later, Grenada won 2-0 against Puerto Rico thanks to a golden goal in overtime (so only scored one goal). These results put Grenada at the top of the table with three points and a goal difference of +2. Barbados had to score at least two more goals than Grenada in the remaining game to qualify for the finals:
| team | Games | Goal difference | Gates | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grenada | 1 | +2 | 2-0 | 3 |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | −1 | 1: 2 | 3 |
| Barbados | 1 | −1 | 0: 1 | 0 |
Course of the game
The game was played at the Barbados National Stadium in Saint Michael .
The game went on for a long time without any special events. Barbados scored two goals and were in the lead at 2-0 with the required two goals difference. At this point in time the following table would have resulted:
| team | Games | Goal difference | Gates | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbados | 2 | +1 | 2: 1 | 3 |
| Grenada | 2 | 0 | 2: 2 | 3 |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | −1 | 1: 2 | 3 |
Barbados would have qualified as group winners for the finals with this final result.
In the 83rd minute Grenada scored a goal to make it 2-1, which would have resulted in the following table:
| team | Games | Goal difference | Gates | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grenada | 2 | +1 | 3: 2 | 3 |
| Barbados | 2 | 0 | 2: 2 | 3 |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | −1 | 1: 2 | 3 |
At this score, Grenada was again qualified for the finals.
Barbados sought another goal to make it 3-1 to restore the two-goal gap. When this did not succeed, the strategy changed shortly before the end of regular time: the game should be a draw after regular time in order to have the chance to create the required two goals difference in the subsequent overtime with a double-counting golden goal. Barbados stopped attacking in the 87th minute and two Barbadian players, defender Sealy and goalkeeper Horace Stoute, played each other short passes before Sealy scored a deliberate own goal. There is a video of this scene.
Now the game was 2-2 draw, with three minutes remaining. The table would have looked like this if tied games were allowed as a result:
| team | Games | Goal difference | Gates | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grenada | 2 | +2 | 4: 2 | 4th |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | −1 | 1: 2 | 3 |
| Barbados | 2 | −1 | 2: 3 | 1 |
With this final score Grenada would of course be even more qualified for the finals. However, the game was now a draw and threatened to go into extra time, where Barbados could qualify with a golden goal. Grenada could still qualify for the finals in regular time if they either win the game or lose with a goal difference of no more than one goal.
If Grenada were to score another goal to make it 2: 3 in the last three minutes and thus win the game, the final table would have been as follows:
| team | Games | Goal difference | Gates | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grenada | 2 | +3 | 5: 2 | 6th |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | −1 | 1: 2 | 3 |
| Barbados | 2 | −2 | 2: 4 | 0 |
If Grenada were to concede a goal to 3-2 in the last three minutes and thus lose the game, the final table would have been as follows:
| team | Games | Goal difference | Gates | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grenada | 2 | +1 | 4: 3 | 3 |
| Barbados | 2 | 0 | 3: 3 | 3 |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | −1 | 1: 2 | 3 |
As a result, Grenada tried to score a goal to qualify in regular time and prevent overtime. Since it didn't matter whether it was an opponent's goal or an own goal, Grenada tried to score an own goal, which seemed more achievable than an opponent's goal. This forced Barbados to defend the opposing goal to keep the tie and they succeeded.
Since it was 2-2 at the end of normal playing time, the game went into overtime. Thorne eventually scored the golden goal for Barbados, which qualified for the Caribbean Cup.
The final table looked like this:
| team | Games | Goal difference | Gates | Points |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barbados | 2 | +1 | 4: 3 | 3 |
| Grenada | 2 | 0 | 4: 4 | 3 |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | −1 | 1: 2 | 3 |
Review
Despite its curious course, this game received little attention, despite newspapers in Great Britain reporting it. The game is also exemplified in Sports Law .
James Clarkson, Grenada's coach, said in a press conference:
“I feel cheated. The person who came up with these rules must be a candidate for a madhouse. The game should never be played with so many players running around the field confused. Our players did not even know which direction to attack: our goal or their goal. I have never seen this happen before. In football, you are supposed to score against the opponents to win, not for them. "
"I feel cheated. The person who invented these rules must be a candidate for the madhouse. […] Our players didn't even know in which direction to attack: our goal or their goal. I've never seen anything like it. In football you should score goals for your own team to win and not for your opponent. "
Analysis of the rule experiment
When evaluating the golden goal rule critically on the basis of this game, it must be taken into account that the curious situation with its (certainly not desirable) consequences could only arise because games that were undecided in the group phase were extended into overtime. As a result, a team could deliberately create a draw with own goals just before the end of the game with their own leadership, but with an insufficient lead to advance, in the hope of achieving the required higher goal difference during the extra time that this forced.
Of course, this is only possible if either full overtime is played or a golden goal is counted multiple times. The original golden goal rule would not have this disadvantage (even for group games with overtime).
This idiosyncratic variant of the golden goal rule was used four times in the qualifiers of the 1994 Caribbean championships. There were no further applications.
Individual evidence
- ^ The Guardian (2011): Who are the greatest runners up?
- ↑ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThpYsN-4p7w (accessed June 17, 2014)
- ↑ The Guardian: Sixth Column (February 5, 1994)
- ↑ The Times : Absurd Cup Rule Obscures Football's Final Goal (February 1, 1994)
- ↑ Simon Gardiner: Sports Law , Routledge Cavendish, 2005, pp. 73-74.