MY Daily Record column in Saturday's paper features a story about Scots firm McBookie losing a fight with IBAS and being forced to pay out more than £2000 on a losing bet.
I side with punters in most battles with the bookies but reckon IBAS have got it wrong with this one. Have a read at the story and let's hear what everyone thinks.
I wrote: A Scots bookie is raging after being forced to pay out more than £2000 on a losing bet. IBAS have ruled in favour of a customer from Edinburgh who placed a £10 treble on Kris Boyd, Bob McHugh and Kane Hemmings all to score first last May.
Kilmarnock's Boyd and Queen of the South's McHugh duly obliged but Greg Stewart netted in a record six seconds to put Cowdenbeath on their way to a 3-1 win against Ayr.
However, a mistake by the tannoy announcer at Central Park resulted in Stewart's strike partner Hemmings being credited with the goal. The BBC and others went with the announcer, prompting Beath fans to slate the organisation's error on social media.
McBookie knew by that reaction something was amiss and when video evidence was posted of Stewart scoring they decided to pay out on the correct player.
In the Daily Record two days later Stewart talked of his delight at hitting his fastest ever goal – while the Scottish League accepted it was his and changed it from Hemmings.
However, one punter demanded his treble worth £2330 be settled as a winner because McBookie rules state in a dispute they'll pay out on the player initially ruled to be the scorer by the league – and that was Hemmings.
In the interest of fair play McBookie stuck to their guns and settled on Stewart. Imagine how you'd have felt if you had been refused winnings on the correct scorer.
The customer took up the case with IBAS (Independent Betting Adjudicaton Service) who decided it didn't matter who scored – only what is reported on the SPFL website at the end of a match. And to me that leaves the situation open to abuse.
In my young days as a cub reporter I did the scoreflashes at Clydebank home matches – so does that mean I could have awarded a goal to a 50-1 shot then cashed in?
McBookie have taken the decision on the chin and paid out but will be changing their rules. Spokesman Paul Petrie said: “IBAS have said we aren’t actually betting on who scored the first goal but on who the SPFL would show at the conclusion of the match.
“As far as we are concerned that is totally misrepresenting the rules but we always abide by the IBAS decision and will do so again. The punter has certainly got lucky. It is not every day you win a four-figure some despite backing a loser.”
McBookie's rules currently state in cases of disoute they will settle the scorer as reported by the official competition website.
This covers situations like in the World Cup when David Luiz was credited with a strike when some felt it was an own goal.
In the Blue Brazil situation there should have been no dispute as it was a clear human error and Stewart was the scorer in the eyes of everyone but one person.
Resident football tipster at Scotland's most read newspaper, the Daily Record, for over 20 years and proud host of one the best betting communities on the web with daily betting tips.
Interesting story Mr F…and I recall the game well, you tipped Hemmings to score first,but I don’t do fgs bets so didnt back it, checked my live score app after a minute and it said Hemmings had scored already and had a chuckle to myself.
Like you say, tannoy announcers in the lower leagues across the land will be rubbing their hands together at this decision.
Maybe we’ll tannoy announcers slapped with bookie bans! Ha!
Marky mark, I’d forgotten I’d tipped Hemmings but I didn’t get paid. I just wish it was as straightforward as bookies pay out on the guy who scored – but every season there are going to be disputes and maybe there should be a panel who decide.
I raised the same issue with Bet Victor. Had a FGS trixie with Boyd, Hemmings and a lad from Peterborough. I didn’t bother going to IBAS – would this be too late or something worth revisiting now Mr F?
Peter, I’d imagine you’re too late now – it’s up to you whether to take it on.
Similar case last season it was a Scottish division game and the goal was awarded to a player as he made double sure the ball crossed the line and it was even announced over the tanoid but bookies paid out on the wrong player. After you fought it the bookies paid out (Paddy Power) remember the guy that won a few grand. There was also another one last season and several bookies paid out. Everyone paid out apart from William Hill who stuck by their guns despite how bad it made them look. The correct scorer was shown on FIFA website and everything and the referees report yet they refused to pay out. My brother also had a four fold with Bet365 which they paid out as a treble as they claimed a match was abandoned after 86 mins. This was despite the fact I could prove through screen shots of William Hill live commentary that shows the game finished in the 93rd minute and a team had hit the woodwork and had two throw ins during this time.
William Hill are always the worst for paying out. I remember around 10 years ago (could be more). Celtic were playing Rangers and Celtic won 1-0 with a John Hartson goal albeit with a wicked deflection. Some bookies paid out as an own goal and most paid out on Hartson First Goal as he was credited with it. All of the bookies who has paid out on an own goal (think it was 2 of them) paid out on both as a gesture of goodwill. William Hill point blank refused to pay out and from what I call they were the only bookie in the industry who did not pay out on Hartson. Think of the money they would have raked in on no Goalscorer and think of the money they would have paid out in order to honour Hartson. Conspiracy?
The guy was clearly lucky but most of the time it’s customers who feel aggrieved in situations like this.
that david luiz one killed me
Tough one Mr F. Morally, the bookies are of course right and should only have paid out on Stewart first scorer. However, there is a certain irony in a punter using the bookies’ t@c against them. Just how often has the boot been on the other foot!
SWJL, you’re right. I’m not critical of the punter but do feel the decision is strange.
you mean his goal at the near post!! i thought that was an own goal
victor, it was given as Luiz’s goal and that’s what bookies paid out on.
looks like the guys had a bit of luck
obviously it must stick in mcbookies throats but Ladbrokes and several others were more than happy to hide behind their rules until you kindly stepped in on the Joshua fight
stan james never paid me out on the first Joshua fight either
they cant have it all ways
I think in this technology led world bookies need to bring their rules into the 21st century and go with the correct result rather than relying on the stadium announcer or some guy who doesn’t know the players reporting back
dave, just back in. In this one I sided with the bookies because I’d hate to see someone with the correct scorer not getting paid out. As far as I can see some firms are moving away from using the Press Association and going with the official scorer. The only problem is people want paid straight away so there are no grounds for delaying payments in cases of dispute.
I was at that game Chris I would never have claimed the goal as Hartsons but good luck to who got paid out The only reason I was there was that The Jags game was postponed because of flu!!!
i’m the same paul i’d hate to see a punter with a winning line not being paid out
it may lead to some bookies not paying out as gestures of goodwill like they did by rightly paying out on greg stewart
as SWJL says its highly ironic though that bookies are moaning about someone using their rule book to shaft them
Mr F – emailed back into BetVictor who have settled up! Cheers, had put this one down to back luck!
Peter, you must have caught them in a good mood but well done.
I was at a game last season and had a player to score anytime.
He duly hits a shot, which is on target, the defender sticks out a leg and it brushes off him and goes in.
I am delighted because I think I’m quids in but get home and check to see that it was credited as an own goal.
I watched it about 20 times on the telly and still can’t see how it was an own goal.
Still not over that one haha!
Thanks for the story… Although said punter is actually a girl and it was your own fabulous tips that got me my winnings! Rules are rules… McBookie have a cheek trying to contest something that’s in their own rule book. I’m now banned from betting with them and they closed my account after I got my cash…
I got lucky with this one I’m not gonna deny that, but doesn’t make it any less sweeter. Nothing better than seeing the bookies get bashed!
Gemma, I didn’t know that – obviously no personal details were given to me. As I said earlier I wasn’t having a go at you for taking them to IBAS – I just feel if that rule stands people who backed Stewart wouldn’t have been paid and that’s unfair. Did they say why they banned you?
Yeah I agree but they’ve already paid out on everyone who backed Stewart now so it’s a win win for all us Punters.
No reason was given just said they had made a ‘business decision’ to close my account. I’ve had nothing but bad attitude from McBookie and their staff – at the end of the day, it’s their rules and it means I was entitled to the money I’m not going to brush 2 grand under the carpet and forget about it! Fair enough Hemmings didn’t actually score but when they scunner themselves with their own rules they can’t take it out on their customers. I bet with a lot of different sites and never had to deal with such difficult and rude staff.
Gemmahmfc, sorry to hear that – you shouldn’t be getting that attitude. The one thing about the bet is they only paid out on Stewart because they were on the ball and realised a mistake had been made.
Did McBookie ask you to print the story?
Gemmahmfc, no one asks me to print anything – I make those decisions. I’ve been aware of the case for some time and wanted to write it up after the IBAS decision was made. As a punter it’s interesting and I’m sure others will agree.
Firstly, well done Gemma. If anything it shows taking a case to IBAS can be worthwhile. It’s good to know that bookies don’t always get things their own way.
I don’t really understand why McBookie shouldn’t have paid out if their rules meant that Hemmings was adjudged to be first goalscorer under those rules. Then they decided to go against their own rules to avoid a pay out? That doesn’t seem right.
A very interesting story all the same and thanks to Mr F for highlighting it.
That’s the way I see it Yves, if they don’t like it then they need to make amendments to their rules. Simple as that!
We didn’t go against our rules and still don’t believe that we did. This is what the whole IBAS case was about. Clearly they disagreed.
Our rules state that we pay out on the first scorer. In this case the first scorer was Greg Stewart. We paid out on him.
Our rules then state that if there is a dispute we will pay out on the scorer stated on the official website. Since there was no dispute there was no need to acknowledge that part of the ruling
Finally that part of the rule is to settle situations such as an OG being awarded when it wasn’t. Not for mistaken identity – which was the case in this situation.
IBAS refused to acknowledge the possibility of a mistaken identity which is clearly an unprecedented situation and requires a change of the rules. We thought that was pretty obvious but they disagreed.
This is clearly a technicality of the rules so not sure why Gemma has a problem with us challenging it bearing in mind it was a losing bet
Paul, I can see why a punter would want to take my advantage but as you know my belief all along is that you should have paid out on Stewart. At the end of the day there wouldn’t have been a dispute if the tannoy announcer had been on the ball.
Mcbookie should of paid out on both, and then changed the rules to stop it happening again, they cant make the rules up as they go, Mcbookie sets there own rules, so if they state, they will payout on the scorer declared by the league, then they should have paid out anyway without it going to IBAS. the customer doesn’t make the rules we just abide by them, its cases like this that damages customer confidence, the saddest part is that, instead of admitting they were wrong, they have the cheek to ban the lady from there site , due to this, i for one will be deactivating my mcbookie account. who knows when they will change any more rules as they go to suit them. absolutely disgusted in Mcbookie.
Cotty96, McBookie have just commented. I think you’re being a bit harsh – why should they have paid on Hemmings when he didn’t score and there was no dispute. They didn’t need to pay out on Stewart and how would you have flet if you’d backed him? Pretty bad I’d imagine.
Mr F, of course there was a dispute, the dispute was the wording of Mcbookies rule, the rule that they set, Mcbookie have said themselves, due to there own wording, the bet was actually for whoever the website name as scorer and not the actual scorer of the goal (unfair as that is, that’s there rules), that’s why they should payout on hemmings, Now if people new that’s what they were betting on, im sure a lot wouldn’t place the bet in the first place, That’s why, out of goodwill and to keep confidence in bookmakers, they should also of paid out on stewart, because that’s what people and even Mcbookie, intended the bet to be, they would of got a lot of credit by admitting it was there mistake, and then they could of changed the wording of the rule to stop it happening again, due to there own error it was unfair not to abide by the rule just because they got bit on the backside, that’s why they should of paid out on both, because it was there own mistake. What would happen Mr F, if you wrote out a bet, but got the wording wrong, the bet you placed lost but the bet you was supposed to place won? would mcbookie or any other pay out then? NO.
Cotty96, I’m sorry but I don’t agree but I’ve had my say. McBookie and IBAS disagree about the interpretation of the rules. If I back a first scorer I want paid out if my player scores first – and if he doesn’t I’m happy to accept my bet’s a loser and move on. In this case Stewart scored first and Hemmings didn’t. There was no argument – just someone making a mistake and announcing it wrongly. Let’s see what happens next season the first time a goal is disputed.
Not having this McBookie.
Fair play to you for coming on though and stating your case.
If the game was on Saturday on Saturday night the official scorer according to the league website was Hemmings?
On Sunday night it was it still Hemmings? How about Monday? When did it change and did you you instigate any change?
You know what your rule was. If the league website said on Saturday night it was Hemmings you should have paid out on that basis. The fact that you held off stinks to me.
The right thing to do would have been to pay out on Hemmings bets on the Saturday. If any customers had Stewart and the league website changed at a later date customers who had bets on Stewart that came forward should have got paid as well. I’m sure the liability on Stewart wasn’t a lot and it would have been seen as a nice gesture. Instead I think this looks bad.
Yves, the change I know wasn’t instigated by McBookie but by Cowdenbeath to make sure the correct player got the credit. Also it was a goal after six seconds so Stewart wanted that one more than maybe any other. Hemmings and Stewart were first and second favourites so you it would be wrong to say the liability on Stewart wasn’t a lot. Right it’s goodnight.
The change, according to BetVictor, was instigated by them on the Wednesday. I had screenshots from various outlets (Sky, Livescore, BBC, SFL, ESPN, whoscored.com as well as BVs website – also understand McBookie has some sort of affiliation with BetVictor). Reasoning they gave was that these outlets all rely on Opta for stats, which is understandable.
I totally understand both sides, but in any industry or service, issues should be dealt with transparently and in a timely manner. BetVictor were far from helpful – I raised the issue myself after the game as I saw ambiguity on twitter, but it was head against a brick wall stuff trying to find out what was going on (or at least getting some empathy instead of bog standard customer service templated emails).
By that – I mean the change on websites (as websites reportedly used to settle still showed Hemmings as of the Tuesday)
But Yves why should we wait until Saturday night to see what is on the official website or indeed Sunday when we knew after six seconds the scorer was Greg Stewart?
The point being is IBAS have said that the way our rules are worded we are not betting on who actually scored the first goal but on who appears on the official website. We think that misrepresents the wording of the ruling. We thought it was clear that we only use the official website in times of dispute. As they have disagreed we need to add a change to the ruling.
This ruling actually gives us permission to go and take back all the winnings paid out on Greg Stewart- who was the favourite so not an insignificant sum. Obviously we are not going to do that because it would be a ridiculous situation where winning bets are losers and losing bets winners.
I appreciate some on here are suggesting we hiding behind our rule book but obviously we would disagree. Indeed it was us that paid out on Steven Thompson first last season and we were also one of the first to pay out on David Luiz and Alexis Sanchez during the World Cup. We thought paying out on a case of mistaken identity from the tannoy announcer was a step to far.
We move on and change our rules for the new season.