Sunderland v Liverpool Sky Sports 1 & HD1 at 1pm 20th March

Paully D

monkey9 wrote: »

I agree. I actually think Sunderland were the better team up to that point and looked the more likely to score.

In regards to the decision, i wouldn't really blame the lino. I know as a Sunderland fan, you're gonna be disappointed about it. But in real time, it did look like it was in the box.

It happened so fast and the linesman had made the decision that he felt it was inside the area. He then needs to tell the ref and fair play to the ref for using his assistant who had a better view.

It's just unfortunate for Sunderland that the lino got it wrong on this occasion.

Once we scored, Sunderland's confidence seemed to drain and our midfield got on the ball more than they had previously and after that, we always looked comfortable.

A good balanced post that, fair play.

Morzadec

Paully D wrote: »

In fairness Sunderland were looked very, very comfortable until that awful decision.

Goals change games and it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that Sunderland would have got something from the game if that penalty hadn't been given.

Should've been a free kick and a red.

Think it might've been more difficult for Sunderland to play the majority of the game with 10 men at 0-0 than 11 at 1-0 down.

Plus Suarez probably would've nailed the freekick in the top corner anyway

monkey9

Morzadec wrote: »

Should've been a free kick and a red.

Think it might've been more difficult for Sunderland to play the majority of the game with 10 men at 0-0 than 11 at 1-0 down.

Plus Suarez probably would've nailed the freekick in the top corner anyway

Nah, don't agree that it was a red. I did think that earlier and so had another look at it. Another defender was coming across and looked like he actually might get to the ball first so i wouldn't class Spearing's chance as a clear goalscoring opportunity.

K-9

monkey9 wrote: »

I agree. I actually think Sunderland were the better team up to that point and looked the more likely to score.

In regards to the decision, i wouldn't really blame the lino. I know as a Sunderland fan, you're gonna be disappointed about it. But in real time, it did look like it was in the box.

It happened so fast and the linesman had made the decision that he felt it was inside the area. He then needs to tell the ref and fair play to the ref for using his assistant who had a better view.

It's just unfortunate for Sunderland that the lino got it wrong on this occasion.

Once we scored, Sunderland's confidence seemed to drain and our midfield got on the ball more than they had previously and after that, we always looked comfortable.

It's one of those that nearly deceived the eye. Definitely one that would benefit from a video referee. 1 minute would sort it out and just give the original free, which Suarez would have scored anyway!

I think we were lucky today but more so on Sunderland injury front. Everything just seemed to go against ye's!

Grayditch

I think it's fair to say, if Liverpool hadn't gotten that peno, Sunderland would have scored six goals before the half was over. Then in the second half, an invigorated Liverpool would have scored 5, making it 6-5. I think it's fair to say at 6-5, Sunderland obviously would have scored making it 7-7, and at 7-7, I think it's fair to say Kenny and Brucie would have demanded a 1 on 1 to settle it, battle of wits which would make the 7-7 thriller look like Birmingham V Stoke on the last day of the season, with nothing to lose or gain.

If only that blasted peno hadn't been given, the joy we could have ALL experienced.

EDIT: See, after all that I still counted the peno, I guess it was just meant to be.

ctrl-alt-delete

monkey9 wrote: »

In regards to the decision, i wouldn't really blame the lino. I know as a Sunderland fan, you're gonna be disappointed about it. But in real time, it did look like it was in the box.

It happened so fast and the linesman had made the decision that he felt it was inside the area. He then needs to tell the ref and fair play to the ref for using his assistant who had a better view.

It's just unfortunate for Sunderland that the lino got it wrong on this occasion.

I was at the match, and I was sitting near to where the linesman who did not give the call would have been, I'm not a Sunderland fan, but would have been cheering them on (so am a bit biased from my view) - but from where I was it looked to me as if the tackle was outside the box. I experienced that in real time . .

For me I have to disagree with you on the linesman having a better view, from where the ref was he should have seen the foul was made outside the box - I Have seen the replay since , and have seen how close he was, and noted that there was nothing blocking his view of the incident.

At the time I am sure he signaled a free kick, it was a criminal weakness on his part to change his decision when really there was no reason why he should doubt what he saw.

The decision should not have had to be made anyways, that was a very poor mistake from Mensah, he should have used his head!

Anyways as you say Sunderland had looked the better team before that, it was a combination of that and the forced subs they had to make that changed the game for me. I don't think Sunderland would have deserved more than a point from the game - I can only remember one decent chance they had - Richardson sliding in and not reaching a cross.

I don't know who got man of the match but Kuyt was my man of the match, he was everywhere on the pitch! he put in some shift today!

Morzadec

monkey9 wrote: »

Nah, don't agree that it was a red. I did think that earlier and so had another look at it. Another defender was coming across and looked like he actually might get to the ball first so i would class Spearing's chance as a clear goalscoring opportunity.

Watched it again,I retract my previous statement, he wasn't the last man.

Blatter

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I was at the match, and I was sitting near to where the linesman who did not give the call would have been, I'm not a Sunderland fan, but would have been cheering them on (so am a bit biased from my view) - but from where I was it looked to me as if the tackle was outside the box. I experienced that in real time . .

For me I have to disagree with you on the linesman having a better view, from where the ref was he should have seen the foul was made outside the box - I Have seen the replay since , and have seen how close he was, and noted that there was nothing blocking his view of the incident.

At the time I am sure he signaled a free kick, it was a criminal weakness on his part to change his decision when really there was no reason why he should doubt what he saw.

The decision should not have had to be made anyways, that was a very poor mistake from Mensah, he should have used his head!

Anyways as you say Sunderland had looked the better team before that, it was a combination of that and the forced subs they had to make that changed the game for me. I don't think Sunderland would have deserved more than a point from the game - I can only remember one decent chance they had - Richardson sliding in and not reaching a cross.

I don't know who got man of the match but Kuyt was my man of the match, he was everywhere on the pitch! he put in some shift today!

My exact thoughts on the incident also.

ctrl-alt-delete

Morzadec wrote: »

Should've been a free kick and a red.

Think it might've been more difficult for Sunderland to play the majority of the game with 10 men at 0-0 than 11 at 1-0 down.

Plus Suarez probably would've nailed the freekick in the top corner anyway

Bramble was close enough to make that not a red card offence for me, so I don't agree that it was going to be a red card if the correct decision had have been made.

monkey9

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

I was at the match, and I was sitting near to where the linesman who did not give the call would have been, I'm not a Sunderland fan, but would have been cheering them on (so am a bit biased from my view) - but from where I was it looked to me as if the tackle was outside the box. I experienced that in real time . .

For me I have to disagree with you on the linesman having a better view, from where the ref was he should have seen the foul was made outside the box - I Have seen the replay since , and have seen how close he was, and noted that there was nothing blocking his view of the incident.

At the time I am sure he signaled a free kick, it was a criminal weakness on his part to change his decision when really there was no reason why he should doubt what he saw.

The decision should not have had to be made anyways, that was a very poor mistake from Mensah, he should have used his head!

Anyways as you say Sunderland had looked the better team before that, it was a combination of that and the forced subs they had to make that changed the game for me. I don't think Sunderland would have deserved more than a point from the game - I can only remember one decent chance they had - Richardson sliding in and not reaching a cross.

I don't know who got man of the match but Kuyt was my man of the match, he was everywhere on the pitch! he put in some shift today!

Well fair enough if you were there. I suppose i can only comment on what i saw from tv. I've seen it there again and i haven't really changed my opinion.

The linesman is clearly in a better position to make the decison. The ref can't tell for sure as he is behind play. He can only really make a guess and lets face it, how many times do you see refs in that situation give the free kick right on the line. It's almost an admission that he knows it's a foul, but he's not sure whether it's inside or out.

I also disagree that it's a sign of weakness that he has consulted his assistant and gone with his decision. In fact, i say the opposite. It's good, positive refereeing and shows good communication. That's what the assistants are there for.

Is it a sign of weakness that referees go along with their assistants on offside calls?

ctrl-alt-delete

monkey9 wrote: »

Well fair enough if you were there. I suppose i can only comment on what i saw from tv. I've seen it there again and i haven't really changed my opinion.

The linesman is clearly in a better position to make the decison. The ref can't tell for sure as he is behind play. He can only really make a guess and lets face it, how many times do you see refs in that situation give the free kick right on the line. It's almost an admission that he knows it's a foul, but he's not sure whether it's inside or out.

I also disagree that it's a sign of weakness that he has consulted his assistant and gone with his decision. In fact, i say the opposite. It's good, positive refereeing and shows good communication. That's what the assistants are there for.

Is it a sign of weakness that referees go along with their assistants on offside calls?

No but that is totally different, Try get a look at how close the ref was for the call, he is 10 yards away at most! He should not change his mind to what someone else further away and who's view was blocked by the presence of Bramble saw of the incident.

The Ref got the decision spot on ,he gave the free kick, and I cannot see how it was a guess on his part. He could never have had a better view of the incident for himself, it was very weak to doubt what he saw and what he gave for me - I still stand by that.

K-9

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

No but that is totally different, Try get a look at how close the ref was for the call, he is 10 yards away at most! He should not change his mind to what someone else further away and who's view was blocked by the presence of Bramble saw of the incident.

The Ref got the decision spot on ,he gave the free kick, and I cannot see how it was a guess on his part. He could never have had a better view of the incident for himself, it was very weak to doubt what he saw and what he gave for me - I still stand by that.

Yes, but he was directly behind it.

The linesman should have had a good view in line with it. He got it wrong but there are times the linesman has a better view, regardless of being further away.

This would be a case of that. The ref went with the lino who was directly in line with it.

monkey9

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

No but that is totally different, Try get a look at how close the ref was for the call, he is 10 yards away at most! He should not change his mind to what someone else further away and who's view was blocked by the presence of Bramble saw of the incident.

The Ref got the decision spot on ,he gave the free kick, and I cannot see how it was a guess on his part. He could never have had a better view of the incident for himself, it was very weak to doubt what he saw and what he gave for me - I still stand by that.

I respect your point of view (pun intended ) and the fact that you were actually there. I suppose we just have to agree to disagree.

I've seen a replay from behind the goal down the other end where to me, the ref can't say with certainty whether it's inside or outside the area because he is behind play. So he's given the usual free kick on the line, but then saw the linesman flag and been told by him on his earpiece that it was inside the box.

He's obviously taken the decision that the linesman is in a better position to be able to make a better call.

The fact that the referee is closer to the incident is, i feel, irrelevant. There are plenty of occasions where the ref is closer to the player with the ball, but the linesman who, though further away, is in a better position to make the call as to whether he is offside or not.

This incident today, like offside calls, is not depending on proximity, but rather the angle from where it's viewed.

K-9

monkey9 wrote: »

I respect your point of view (pun intended ) and the fact that you were actually there. I suppose we just have to agree to disagree.

I've seen a replay from behind the goal down the other end where to me, the ref can't say with certainty whether it's inside or outside the area because he is behind play. So he's given the usual free kick on the line, but then saw the linesman flag and been told by him on his earpiece that it was inside the box.

He's obviously taken the decision that the linesman is in a better position to be able to make a better call.

The fact that the referee is closer to the incident is, i feel, irrelevant. There are plenty of occasions where the ref is closer to the player with the ball, but the linesman who, though further away, is in a better position to make the call as to whether he is offside or not.

This incident today, like offside calls, is not depending on proximity, but rather the angle from where it's viewed.

From looking at MoTD2, the referee went with the linesman, who had the better view, regardless of 80/85 yards away.

The call was simple. Was it in the box or out. The linesman was better placed to call it. That he called it wrong doesn't mean he was wrong to consult the linesman, 80 yards away or not.

Blatter

I'm not buying that the lineman had a better view, no chance.

As said above, the ref was only 10 yards behind it and it was a full yard outside the box when Mensagh went to ground and made the tackle.

Also, as said above, Bramble is impeding the linesman view to a degree.

Melion

The linesman was in a straight line with the incident. Where is this **** of him being 80 yards away coming from?

monkey9

Melion wrote: »

The linesman was in a straight line with the incident. Where is this **** of him being 80 yards away coming from?

Man Utd fans and Steve Bruce.

monkey9

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

I'm not buying that the lineman had a better view, no chance.

As said above, the ref was only 10 yards behind it and it was a full yard outside the box when Mensagh went to ground and made the tackle.

Also, as said above, Bramble is impeding the linesman view to a degree.

Doesn't matter whether you're buying it or not. The fact remains that the linesman is in a better position to give that call rather than the position of the referee. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

mike65

The flipping pitch is only 75 yards wide. He was 85 feet maybe.

ctrl-alt-delete

monkey9 wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether you're buying it or not. The fact remains that the linesman is in a better position to give that call rather than the position of the referee. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

He is not though, just because he is in line does not mean he had a better view.

The ref could not have had a better view for himself, he got it spot on.

The linesman made a mistake, and then the ref made his mistake by trusting him over what he saw 10 yards in fron of him.

Maybe if he was on the half way and the distance between the line and the incident becomes impossible to see, then the linesman would be in a better position to call it.

Anyways I'll say no more on it, I saw it and got it right, the ref saw it and got it right, the linesman didn't see it and got it wrong.

Blatter

monkey9 wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether you're buying it or not. The fact remains that the linesman is in a better position to give that call rather than the position of the referee. It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

Well you're not doing a very good job of explaining how a linesman 35 yards away(regardless if he is in line) can be in a better position to make the call than a referee who is 10 yards behind it with a clear view.

If anything, the proof lies with my claim as the ref initially made the correct decision and the lineman made the incorrect decision.

monkey9

Look, this is getting ridiculous. It is obvious that the ref was not 100% sure whether it was inside or outside the box. If he was 100% sure, he would have overruled the linesman's call.

The fact that he trusted the linesman's calls proves beyond all doubt that he wasn't 100% sure and also proves that he felt the linesman is in a better position to make the call.

monkey9

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Well you're not doing a very good job of explaining how a linesman 35 yards away(regardless if he is in line) can be in a better position to make the call than a referee who is 10 yards behind it with a clear view.

If anything, the proof lies with my claim as the ref initially made the correct decision and the lineman made the incorrect decision.

The same explanation as to why a linesman is in a better position of calling offside rather than a ref behind play.

Turtyturd

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

Well you're not doing a very good job of explaining how a linesman 35 yards away(regardless if he is in line) can be in a better position to make the call than a referee who is 10 yards behind it with a clear view.

If anything, the proof lies with my claim as the ref initially made the correct decision and the lineman made the incorrect decision.

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

I don't think any of us will lose sleep over it.

I think you might be at this stage.:D

monkey9

Turtyturd wrote: »

I think you might be at this stage.:D

LOL!! We shall not rest easy tonight whatsoever!!!

Blatter

monkey9 wrote: »

The same explanation as to why a linesman is in a better position of calling offside rather than a ref behind play.

That's different, and I'll explain why.

To judge an offside correctly, you need to be able to have a full view across the pitch as a left back or a right back could be playing somebody onside, and the referee, being in the middle of the pitch most of the time, cannot look two places at once, and therefore needs the assistance of a linesman. He is also there to implement the offside when the referee is at the other side of the pitch.

Now, it todays match, the referee was 10 yards behind the incident, was looking straight at it, and had a clear view. He made the decision, and made the correct one, but showed weakness by not overruling the linesman.

Blatter

Turtyturd wrote: »

I think you might be at this stage.:D

On that note sir I am off to bed:D

K-9

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

I'm not buying that the lineman had a better view, no chance.

As said above, the ref was only 10 yards behind it and it was a full yard outside the box when Mensagh went to ground and made the tackle.

Also, as said above, Bramble is impeding the linesman view to a degree.

Angles and 3 Dimensions, that type of stuff.

K-9

PS. Bruce was taking the piss with 80 yards!

But he diverted the point nicely.

Blatter

K-9 wrote: »

Angles and 3 Dimensions, that type of stuff.

You don't need to have the best dimension or angle to see a tackle was made a good yard outside the box if you are 10 yards away!!

That's my last post on this, good night and good luck;)

Paully D

Interesting to note that the assistant referee who signalled for the penalty is from Cheshire, a hotbed of Liverpool supporters.

I always thought that you can't officiate in a game that involves a team from your area. For example Michael Oliver doesn't officiate Sunderland games as he's from the Tyne and Wear area.

K-9

OH, Bramble is not impeding the linesmans view. All that is relevant is, where does the tackle happen, before the line or not. Where Bramble is, is irrelevant!

K-9

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

You don't need to have the best dimension or angle to see a tackle was made a good yard outside the box if you are 10 yards away!!

That's my last post on this, good night and good luck;)

Yes, but the linesman has the best angle, directly across with a perfect view of the penalty line! Simples!

As somebody pointed out, it's like an offside call!

Male linesman that's it. A female linesperson would have sorted this.

monkey9

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

That's different, and I'll explain why.

To judge an offside correctly, you need to be able to have a full view across the pitch as a left back or a right back could be playing somebody onside, and the referee, being in the middle of the pitch most of the time, cannot look two places at once, and therefore needs the assistance of a linesman. He is also there to implement the offside when the referee is at the other side of the pitch.

Now, it todays match, the referee was 10 yards behind the incident, was looking straight at it, and had a clear view. He made the decision, and made the correct one, but showed weakness by not overruling the linesman.

Again, this is ridiculous. Anybody who thinks a referee ten yards behind play is in a better position than a linesman who is looking across play to say whether a foul occurs a yard inside or outside the area is either lying or a Man U fan talking about an incident profiting Liverpool. (Both, really)

Melion

Paully D wrote: »

Interesting to note that the assistant referee who signalled for the penalty is from Cheshire, a hotbed of Liverpool supporters.

I always thought that you can't officiate in a game that involves a team from your area. For example Michael Oliver doesn't officiate Sunderland games as he's from the Tyne and Wear area.

Not interesting in the slightest

Theresalwaysone

monkey9 wrote: »

The same explanation as to why a linesman is in a better position of calling offside rather than a ref behind play.

This is absolutely retarded.

Edit: Just to say, in relation to this matter (the ref being behind the tackler) the above is retarded. Not in general.

RasTa

monkey9 wrote: »

Man Utd fans and Steve Bruce.

Get over yourself, almost every neutral commentator said it was outside the box. Just take the fact that it wasn't a peno and move on. I often wonder if some people on here have ever set foot on a football pitch.

LuckyLloyd

It wasn't a peno. Not that I or any Liverpool fans will give a ****. Sunderland were soundly beaten over the 90 minutes, and have nothing real to complain about.

5starpool

RasTa wrote: »

Get over yourself, almost every neutral commentator said it was outside the box. Just take the fact that it wasn't a peno and move on. I often wonder if some people on here have ever set foot on a football pitch.

Very few are claiming it was a penalty. What they are (rather pointlessly) arguing about is whether the ref from 10 yards behind, or the linesman from 40 yards across is better placed to make a decision about where on the pitch exactly the challenge happened.

As pointed out above, if the ref was sure about his decision he would have stuck with it. The linesman was adamant, therefore the ref sided with his certainty. It was the wrong decision, but that is why it happened.

RasTa

5starpool wrote: »

Very few are claiming it was a penalty. What they are (rather pointlessly) arguing about is whether the ref from 10 yards behind, or the linesman from 40 yards across is better placed to make a decision about where on the pitch exactly the challenge happened.

As pointed out above, if the ref was sure about his decision he would have stuck with it. The linesman was adamant, therefore the ref sided with his certainty. It was the wrong decision, but that is why it happened.

Indeed. I was pissy in work at Monday morning 8am and reading as you pointed out a pointless debate about above topic.

Grayditch

Ah. Another week of "Yeah Liverpool won, BUT..."

It was a bad decision. If there are any fans of any other club reading this, who's teams have benefited from a bad decision or two, please talk us through dealing with the shame of it all.

Likewise, any fan of a club who has NEVER benefited from a bad decision, tell us what it's like? Is it as glorious as I'd imagine it to be? Which is better, being able to sleep at night, or the complimentary high horse.

I feel for Sunderland fans and fans of people who tune in to watch Liverpool fail. We'll stack these three dirty points under Carragher's measly yellow card, and a newspaper which reads yet again; 'Liverpool win game, but not respect of piers shocker'

WINNING.

YouTookMyName

Paully D

A tactical review of the game from a Sunderland perspective, with compliments about Liverpool's defending and in particular Dirk Kuyt:

http://www.rokerreport.com/2011/3/22/2064228/talking-tactics-safc-v-liverpool-h