Bendel Insurance FC fans have accused the league management body of double standards, insisting that the displaced goalframe invalidated Rangers’ controversial winning goal
Bendel Insurance Football Club of Benin had petitioned the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF), demanding annulment of the 1-0 defeat to Rangers International FC in their rescheduled Nigeria Premier Football League (NPFL) Matchday 9 encounter played at the Awka City Stadium on Wednesday, November 4, 2026.
The petition, signed by the club’s chairman, Comrade Jarrett Tenebe, followed an earlier protest to the NPFL over a controversial goal scored by Rangers after the goal frame was disabled, as Bendel Insurance was visibly affected by the unfortunate incident during an attacking move.
Tenebe is also threatening to withdraw Bendel Insurance from the league, going by the repeated unfair officiating of matches involving the team over some time and especially if the false goal awarded to Rangers is allowed to stand.
Some fans of the Benin Arsenals carried out a peaceful protest against NPFL’s response to the insurance petition at Samuel Ogbemudia Stadium during matchday 12 against Niger Tornadoes. Some of them expressed dissatisfaction that if NPFL has the power to deduct 3 points, 3 goals from a team whose fans assaulted match officials or were found to have violated the rules of the game by way of misconduct during a match that had been concluded, how come the same body can’t say it can’t annul a referee’s decision in similar circumstances.
In a significant development, the NPFL has acknowledged the grievance raised by Bendel Insurance, admitting that its review of the match footage brought it to terms with the club’s complaint. However, the league declined to overturn the result, citing its inability under existing regulations to annul the outcome of a concluded match.
In its November 6, 2026 letter addressed to the Chairman of Bendel Insurance, the NPFL Chief Operating Officer, Dr Ayo Abdulrahaman, said the league had reviewed the video evidence submitted by the club and decided to refer the referee to the NFF Referees Appointment Committee for further examination of the decision.
The NPFL explained that its position was informed by the existing rules governing concluded matches and what it described as football’s longstanding tradition of not overturning decisions made by referees on the field of play.
The league, however, stressed that its decision was not intended to disregard the provisions of the Laws of the Game cited in Bendel Insurance’s protest.
Dissatisfied with the response, Bendel Insurance escalated the matter to the NFF Disciplinary and Appeal Committees, arguing that the NPFL’s acknowledgement of the irregularity of the goal should necessarily attract appropriate sporting consequences.
In its five-page petition dated November 6, the Benin Arsenal argued that the goal should never have been allowed because the crossbar and goal frame had become visibly displaced before the ball entered the net.
According to the club, the match officials were obligated under Law 1.10 of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) Laws of the Game to immediately stop play whenever a crossbar becomes displaced or broken, pending its repair or replacement.
The petition maintained that the referee’s failure to stop play constituted a breach of a mandatory provision of the Laws of the Game, rendering the goal invalid.
Bendel Insurance further argued that Law 10.1, which defines the conditions under which a goal is scored, could not be properly applied in circumstances where the goal frame and crossbar were no longer in their prescribed positions.
The club also rejected the anticipated reliance on Law 5.2, which generally makes referees’ decisions on facts connected with play, including whether a goal has been scored.
It argued that its complaint was not about challenging the referee’s judgement on an ordinary incident but about the failure to enforce an express provision of the Laws of the Game requiring play to stop.
The petition also placed responsibility on Rangers International as the home club, citing Rules B4.1 and B4.2 of the NPFL regulations, which require home clubs to ensure that their match venues meet approved standards and satisfy applicable safety requirements.
According to Bendel Insurance, the displacement of the goalframe during normal play raised serious questions about compliance with those obligations.
The club consequently asked the NFF to review the NPFL’s November 6 decision, declare that the match officials breached Law 1.10, invalidate the disputed goal and annul the 1-0 result.
It further requested that the match be declared a draw, with one point awarded to each club, while Rangers should face appropriate sanctions for allegedly failing to provide a safe playing environment.
Other reliefs sought include an order compelling the NPFL to release the video footage reviewed by its officials and the match officials’ reports, as well as an investigation into compliance with the venue safety requirements at Awka City Stadium.
Beyond the disputed goal, Bendel Insurance raised concerns over what it described as inconsistent treatment by the league in its handling of disciplinary and match-related decisions.
The club recalled that on May 10, 2026, following its Matchday 37 encounter against Rangers International, the NPFL reportedly stripped it of points it had earned after disputed officiating decisions and subsequent acknowledgement of irregularities.
It argued that the league’s willingness to take retrospective action against Bendel Insurance in that instance contrasted sharply with its present refusal to intervene despite acknowledging the grievance surrounding the Rangers’ goal.
The petition also referenced December 12, 2025, as the date of an earlier retrospective action by the league, although the specific Matchday 37 incident was identified in the document as having occurred on May 10, 2026.
Bendel Insurance therefore urged the NFF to ensure that the league applies its regulations uniformly and without discrimination against member clubs.
The controversy has now placed the NPFL’s handling of disputed match outcomes, the responsibility of home clubs for stadium safety and the limits of retrospective disciplinary intervention under fresh scrutiny.
While the league has referred the referee’s conduct to the NFF Referees Appointment Committee, the final determination of Bendel Insurance’s appeal now rests with the appropriate NFF authorities.
The outcome could have wider implications for the enforcement of the Laws of the Game and the accountability of clubs and match officials in the NPFL.
During the match played on November 8, 2026, between Bendel Insurance and Niger Tornadoes at Dr Samuel Ogbemudia Stadium in Benin City, Insurance fans and supporters staged a protest against NPFL’s casual response, with various placards calling on the premier league football body to be seen as an unbiased body for every club. Insurance won against Niger Tornadoes 2- 1