Should Fowlers goal have counted

TheMonster

Would be intersting the see the match assessors report and will be interesting to watch what happens the referee and assistants, will they bed oing Championship games for a while?

Lemlin

Take it wrote:

It was offside yes, but saying that its a disgrace is harsh, would the same people who said it was a disgrace say the say about the other "offsides" in the game that probably would have lead to at least another goal when the play was in his own half? That decision to me is just as bad as it’s a bread and butter rule with no complications for them to get it wrong.

Who exactly is the "his" you are talking about? Didn't get your post at all.

I would call the decision a disgrace. When the ball runs directly past a player, and he reaches his leg out to touch it but misses, would you not count that as being active in the move?

Cisse tried to touch it. Most linesmen would have flagged the moment the ball went near him.

jesus_thats_gre

Jesus christ, will you ever just shut the **** up..

It was off side.. It was a bad decision.. Every team suffers and benefits from them equally over the course of the season.. Build a bridge...

dirkey_wynne

I think it should have stood. And I'm a Utd fan, and it cost me money since I had 0-0 backed, but I still think it should have stood. To say he moved his leg toward the ball and missed, is incorrect if you ask me. I think he realised he was offisde and pulled his leg away.

Perhaps this caused the Rovers defence to stop, but that is a fault with them. I remember playing sport as a young un, and from an early age I was always told "play to the whistle." This is sound advice.

Thanx 4 The Fish

dirkey_wynne wrote:

I think it should have stood. And I'm a Utd fan, and it cost me money since I had 0-0 backed, but I still think it should have stood. To say he moved his leg toward the ball and missed, is incorrect if you ask me. I think he realised he was offisde and pulled his leg away.

Perhaps this caused the Rovers defence to stop, but that is a fault with them. I remember playing sport as a young un, and from an early age I was always told "play to the whistle." This is sound advice.

So the Referees Chief (Keith Hackett) has come out and said the decision was the right one. After seeing it and the intent he maintains that Cisse was not offside. Keith Hackett said that the footballing world needs to get up to the same level as the refs.

Google it for link.

Lemlin

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

Jesus christ, will you ever just shut the **** up..

It was off side.. It was a bad decision.. Every team suffers and benefits from them equally over the course of the season.. Build a bridge...

Thanks for the personal abuse. I wonder will the mods notice it though?

Say what you like, I'm sure if the decision had gone against Liverpool, and they were chasing a CL or UEFA place, you'd find it hard to stomach.

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

So the Referees Chief (Keith Hackett) has come out and said the decision was the right one. After seeing it and the intent he maintains that Cisse was not offside. Keith Hackett said that the footballing world needs to get up to the same level as the refs.

Google it for link.

So what exactly does offside entail? If he's standing by the decision, this could open up a whole new can of worms eg. where Bolton used to place players in offside positions at free kicks ruling that they were inactive.

dirkey_wynne

Lemlin wrote:

Thanks for the personal abuse. I wonder will the mods notice it though?

I must have missed something. Telling someone to shut up doesn't constitute abuse, does it?

Lemlin wrote:

So what exactly does offside entail? If he's standing by the decision, this could open up a whole new can of worms eg. where Bolton used to place players in offside positions at free kicks ruling that they were inactive.

So, because he moved toward the ball, but didn't touch it, he's interfering. If a player is on the goalline, a defender, he sees ball coming towards him, sticks hand up to ball to handle, realises it'll hit the bar, takes hand away, should that be handball?

I think it was a good decision.

Lemlin

dirkey_wynne wrote:

I must have missed something. Telling someone to shut up doesn't constitute abuse, does it?
So, because he moved toward the ball, but didn't touch it, he's interfering. If a player is on the goalline, a defender, he sees ball coming towards him, sticks hand up to ball to handle, realises it'll hit the bar, takes hand away, should that be handball?

I think it was a good decision.

It does when you include the word "****" in it. Try it in work and I'm sure your manager will inform you about it.

That's totally different. All the opposition players wouldn't stop moving if he moved his hand away, would they?

Also, Cisse's move could be seen as a dummy, to allow the ball to roll through to Morientes, therefore he was involved in play through the dummy.

dirkey_wynne

Lemlin wrote:

It does when you include the word "****" in it. Try it in work and I'm sure your manager will inform you about it.

That's totally different. All the opposition players wouldn't stop moving if he moved his hand away, would they?

Also, Cisse's move could be seen as a dummy, to allow the ball to roll through to Morientes, therefore he was involved in play through the dummy.

Fair enough, that's your point of view on it. You're a Blackburn fan, am I correct?

I'm a Utd fan, therefore impartial. I think it was a good decision to leave it stand.

I think players should spend more time playing to the whistle than expecting decisions.

Lemlin

dirkey_wynne wrote:

Fair enough, that's your point of view on it. You're a Blackburn fan, am I correct?

I'm a Utd fan, therefore impartial. I think it was a good decision to leave it stand.

I think players should spend more time playing to the whistle than expecting decisions.

Yes, I am a Blackburn fan. If you want to go down the road that you're inpartial though, look at the poll - says it all really.

dirkey_wynne

Lemlin wrote:

Yes, I am a Blackburn fan. If you want to go down the road that you're inpartial though, look at the poll - says it all really.

What does that say? It says that more people think that you're right than I am. That doesn't really matter, now does it? Whose opinions matter? The referee, and the linesman. They decreed that it was a goal. They watched again. They decreed that it was a goal. The chief of referee's watched it. He decreed that it was a goal. So professionals such as these, state that it was a goal.

But sure, what would they know?

Lemlin

dirkey_wynne wrote:

What does that say? It says that more people think that you're right than I am. That doesn't really matter, now does it? Whose opinions matter? The referee, and the linesman. They decreed that it was a goal. They watched again. They decreed that it was a goal. The chief of referee's watched it. He decreed that it was a goal. So professionals such as these, state that it was a goal.

But sure, what would they know?

I'm merely pointing out that you saying I am biased has little foundation here. The poll proves that.

Yes, and professionals like pundits etc., who have played the game and watch it, week-in, week-out, have declared that it shouldn't of been a goal.

Kingp35

I totally agree with Lemlin that it should have been offside. That thing said about moving your hand away from a handball ranks up there with the most utterly ridiculous things I have ever read in the Soccer forum.

Lemlin

Kingp35 wrote:

I totally agree with Lemlin that it should have been offside. That thing said about moving your hand away from a handball ranks up there with the most utterly ridiculous things I have ever read in the Soccer forum.

Thank you. As are most of his arguments IMO.

Ardent

Kingp35 wrote:

I totally agree with Lemlin that it should have been offside. That thing said about moving your hand away from a handball ranks up there with the most utterly ridiculous things I have ever read in the Soccer forum.

Care to explain why? I thought it was a good analogy actually.

Anyway, at the end of the day it doesn't matter - it's been looked at again by those who enforce the rules of the game and it has been *again* deemed a valid goal. No amount of waxing lyrical on an internet forum is going to change history.

Kingp35

Ardent wrote:

Care to explain why? I thought it was a good analogy actually.

Because they are totally different fouls and have nothing whatsoever in common. I thought that was pretty obvious.

Let me ask you this, if a player is standing in an offside position and the ball is played to him but instead of touching the ball he dummies it and lets the ball roll under his legs, is he offside?. Now he was clearly interfering with play but didnt touch the ball. Its still offiside. Cisse was doing the same, he was clearly interferring with play, as he was not on his way out, the ball came to him and he went to hit it but pulled away, so it could be counted as a dummy which is clearly interferring with play. I cant even see an argument in this case.

zAbbo

Score stands at 1-0 to Liverpool still, even with all these valid arguments, so enough of the 'we wuz robbed'

Emmo

Im a Liverpool fan and I thought that it was a lucky decision for us. Not complaining though.

Its telling when Cisse's best contribution to us winning the game was when he didnt touch the ball.

He should have buried the other chances he had.

Emmo

dirkey_wynne

Lemlin wrote:

Thank you. As are most of his arguments IMO.

Haha. My arguments are ridiculous. Yet you're the one who's arguing with professionals whose job is to know the rules of the game, and enforce them.

Lemlin

dirkey_wynne wrote:

Haha. My arguments are ridiculous. Yet you're the one who's arguing with professionals whose job is to know the rules of the game, and enforce them.

Yes, that argument is ridiculous IMO because there are countless other professionals, who actually played the game, who state it shouldn't of been a goal. How the referees can come out and say that anyway is beyond me: just look at all the other linesmen who would of called offside for Cisse straight away, as is the norm, are they all wrong? If that's the case, then the referees association in England seriously needs to look at itself. Some consistency would be nice for a start.

Your attempt at calling me biased was also ridiculous because the poll shows I am not the only one who thinks it shouldn't of been a goal.

As for your other argument, it was Kingp35 who called it ridiculous or something of the like, not me.

dirkey_wynne

Lemlin wrote:

Yes, that argument is ridiculous IMO because there are countless other professionals, who actually played the game, who state it shouldn't of been a goal. How the referees can come out and say that anyway is beyond me: just look at all the other linesmen who would of called offside for Cisse straight away, as is the norm, are they all wrong? If that's the case, then the referees association in England seriously needs to look at itself. Some consistency would be nice for a start.

Your attempt at calling me biased was also ridiculous because the poll shows I am not the only one who thinks it shouldn't of been a goal.

As for your other argument, it was Kingp35 who called it ridiculous or something of the like, not me.

I never said you called my other argument ridiculous.

As for calling you biased, I didn't. All I said was that mine was a completely neutral, unaffected view. I doubt yours is, and I'm not as such saying you're biased, it's just as I've stated before - and as I know I myself am guilty - I don't think it's entirely possible for a fan to be completely neutral in his/her views when it's his/her own team involved. I feel your judgement does get clouded when it's your own team involved, if only slightly.

As for consistency, I agree, there is a need. However, your point that other professionals etc including players doesn't hold much weight, to me. Their job is to play the game. It's officials job to know each rule to the very letter.

And the fact that the chief of ref's says it should be a goal sways it for me. He didn't get appointed to that role without knowing what he's doing.

~Rebel~

Why is this argument still going on?! Seriously, everyone knows everyone elses standpoint on this so can we please just let the issue die? Lemlin its not like your going to change anyone elses mind, you've made you point, its up to you to leave it to others to see if they agree or disagree. If they disagree thats their prerogative, we dont have to keep all coming back to call each other on each disagreement cause otherwise it will keep going round in circles. i agreed with you that it was offside and you still took offence to my argument that maybe the lineman didnt see everything.

The goal stands. The only people who's opinion that matters have said it stands and that the decision was right (against my own opinion but ill live with it) can we just let it go?!

KdjaCL

Lemlin and Jesus banned for one week for trolling and falling for trolling.



kdjac