NPL Bizarre: Goalpost Collapses Mid-Match, Referee Awards Goal to Rangers; Bendel Insurance Petitions NFF, Demands Cancellation

By Correspondent

Bendel Insurance Football Club have formally petitioned the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF), demanding the annulment of the only goal scored in their 1-0 defeat to Rangers International FC of Enugu over an alleged violation of the Laws of the Game involving a displaced goalframe.

The petition, signed by the Chairman of Bendel Insurance FC, Jarrett Tenebe, was submitted to the NFF Disciplinary Committee through the Federation’s General Secretary on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, the same day the encounter was played.

The rescheduled Matchday 9 fixture of the 2026/2027 Nigeria Premier Football League (NPFL) season took place at the Awka City Stadium, Anambra State, with Rangers emerging victorious through a goal scored shortly after the restart of the second half, reportedly around the 47th minute.

However, Bendel Insurance are challenging the validity of the goal, alleging that the crossbar of the goalpost had become displaced during Rangers’ attacking move, but the referee failed to stop play as required by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) Laws of the Game.

According to the petition, the goalframe displacement was visible in the match footage, yet the referee allowed play to continue until the ball entered the net and subsequently awarded the goal.

The Benin-based club argued that the incident constituted a breach of Law 1.10 of the IFAB Laws of the Game, which provides that where a crossbar becomes displaced or broken, play must be stopped until it is repaired or replaced in its proper position, with the game restarted by a dropped ball.

Bendel Insurance maintained that the provision was mandatory and left the referee with no discretion to allow play to continue under such circumstances.

The club further argued that the goal should not have been recognised because it was scored when the goalframe was not in its proper position, thereby raising questions about compliance with the requirements of Laws 1 and 10 governing the field of play and the determination of a goal.

While acknowledging that Law 5.2 makes the referee’s decisions on facts connected with play, including whether a goal has been scored, final, Bendel Insurance contended that its complaint was not about a disputed incident of play but the alleged failure to apply a mandatory provision of the Laws of the Game.

To support its position, the club cited the 2022 Japanese J.League case involving Montedio Yamagata and Fagiano Okayama, in which a match was ordered to be replayed following what was described as a clear misapplication of the Laws of the Game that could have influenced the outcome.

Bendel Insurance, however, acknowledged that the Japanese decision was only persuasive authority and not binding on the Nigerian football authorities.

The petition also drew attention to the NPFL Framework and Rules, particularly provisions requiring clubs to ensure that their playing grounds meet approved standards and maintain valid safety certification.

It further requested an investigation into the condition of the goalpost and the responsibilities of the home club, match officials and the Match Commissioner.

Among the reliefs sought, Bendel Insurance asked the NFF and the NPFL authorities to review the match footage, referee’s report and Match Commissioner’s report on the incident.

The club is also seeking a declaration that the goal was invalid, the cancellation of the 1-0 result and the recognition of the match as a goalless draw, with one point awarded to each club.

Additionally, it requested an inquiry into Rangers’ compliance with stadium safety requirements and an administrative review of the match officials’ application of Law 1 during the encounter.

The petition called on the NPFL to preserve all available match recordings, obtain statements from the assistant referees and fourth official, and grant Bendel Insurance access to the relevant match officials’ reports before reaching a decision.

Bendel Insurance stressed that its protest was not an allegation of bad faith against the match officials but a request for the appropriate interpretation and application of the Laws of the Game.

The club also reserved its right to pursue further remedies under the NPFL Framework and Rules, NFF Statutes and, where applicable, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

It maintained that the outcome of the protest has implications for the consistent application of football regulations, players’ safety and the integrity of the NPFL competition.