Bendel Insurance petitions NPFL over Rangers’ goal

Bendel Insurance have submitted a petition to the organisers of the Nigeria Premier Football League (NPFL) over an incident that happened in their match against Enugu Rangers on Wednesday evening.

The match ended 1-0 in favour of the defending champions, but Insurance lodged a complaint arguing that the only goal of the game should not have stood because the crossbar was felled when it was scored.

The match was played on Wednesday, 4 November, at the Awka City Stadium. In a club statement issued on Thursday, Bendel Insurance said the incident happened during a Rangers attack shortly after the second-half restart, when the goalpost’s crossbar became displaced. The referee did not stop play, Rangers went on to score, and the goal was allowed to stand.

The goal came around the 47th minute and decided the contest. Bendel Insurance says that makes the issue far more than a footnote, and the club insists the irregularity “materially affected the result.”

The protest rests on IFAB Law 1.10. Bendel Insurance argues the law requires play to be stopped when a crossbar is displaced or broken, and that it must stay stopped until the crossbar is repaired or replaced. In the club’s view, the referee should have halted the game the moment the goalframe moved.

Bendel Insurance also contends that the decision amounts to a misapplication of the Laws of the Game, not a simple refereeing judgment or a factual call. That distinction matters to their case. The club argues the referee’s decision should not be shielded by the finality provision in Law 5.2, because a mandatory law was not correctly applied.

The club stressed that the petition does not accuse the match officials of deliberate wrongdoing. Bendel Insurance describes it as a formal challenge to how the Laws of the Game were applied, and says they are putting particular emphasis on player safety, competitive fairness and the integrity of the NPFL.

The league has yet to respond publicly to the petition, and Rangers have not commented on the claims. The outcome will test how the NPFL treats a protest built on the application of the Laws rather than on a disputed refereeing call.

.