Liverpool vs Chelsea, FA Cup Final, May 05, 17:15, Wembley Stadium

copacetic

-Ade- wrote: »

Thats the still that espn kept using, there are two problems with it, the ball is already coming back off the hand, and the camera angle is about a yard off the which is a big deal from 50 yards away. You just can't tell.

Espns software view from above appears to show its over the line, from the side, seems to show not quite.

Impossible for officials to give it and be sure either way.

Grayditch

Anybody who says it either was or wasn't over the line is guessing.

jive

The animated thing they do to determine if the ball is over the line or not showed it wasn't over the line on ITV. How accurate that is I don't know but anyway!

Guy:Incognito

jive wrote: »

Regardless of whether it was or not, the linesman made the right decision by not giving it because he couldn't definitely say that it was over the line.

A couple of inches and it was the wrong decision. He wouldnt have had any better of a view of it and still wouldnt have know whether it was in or not, which proves my point. He's going on guesswork and giving the benefit of the doubt to the defence. That wasnt good enough 10 years ago. It's beyond a joke.

donfers

Corholio wrote: »

At best it wasn't over the line, at worst it wasn't over the line. A part of the ball was clearly not past the crossbar, it was reasonably conclusive.

"reaosnably conclusive" lol that doesn't even make sense


looks like it was over from the overhead shot to me, as i said the truth will come out, a lot of people making early snap judgements

adox

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Roberto Di Matteo - even more a legend now

Have to say he's a class act. Some turn around in your season since he took charge and seems a nice guy to boot.

CL7

Fair play to Chelsea. They deserved it. Carroll looks like he's going to be a proper player. Hopefully Kenny doesn't get another year after this disaster of a season. Might have been hard to let him go if we won today so not all negative.

Sgt Pepper 64

Carroll looked offside for the first goal - should have been offside cam checked !

Thanx 4 The Fish

wcarey1975 wrote: »

Fair play chelsea better team won on the day. FWIW I think it was a goal but these decisions shouldnt become the focal point of the match. It's 2012 for gods sake.

They are still talking about whether the ball was over the line in the 66 world cup final and that was nearly 50 years ago. Give us a few hours to talk about this one eh...

Iago

The more I see it, the more I think it was in.

Can't see how the linesman could give it in real time without the benefit of technology though. I'm still not sure after about 20 replays, but edging towards it being over the line.

Mr Magnolia

-Ade- wrote: »

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3k9xdhgol1rolk29o1_1280.jpg

Camera isn't looking straight down the line. My first reaction was a goal and I still think the ball crossed the line. Regardless of this, Chelsea were the better side, I'm more annoyed with our showing for the first 60min than I am with the above. A couple of players were particularly poor for such an occasion.

Overall, again Chelsea deserved the win on the balance of play. Congrats.

copacetic

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Carroll looked offside for the first goal - should have been offside cam checked !

They replayed it twice on espn during the game, he was behind the ball and a yard behind the Chelsea right back also.

jive

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

A couple of inches and it was the wrong decision. He wouldnt have had any better of a view of it and still wouldnt have know whether it was in or not, which proves my point. He's going on guesswork and giving the benefit of the doubt to the defence. That wasnt good enough 10 years ago. It's beyond a joke.

Yeah but another few inches might have made him think it was more likely to be over the line than not based on the trajectory it came out from cech's hand. You give the benefit of the doubt to the defending team when it comes to the ball going over the line, the offside rule is where you give the benefit of the doubt of the attacking team (general rule of thumb, obviously).

Chelsea deserved to win, comfortable for the whole game until Carroll came on and they tried to rest on what they had. Pool can't have any complaints, they didn't turn up until after an hour.

Benimar

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Carroll looked offside for the first goal - should have been offside cam checked !

Bosingwa had him on by about 5 yards! He was practically at the corner flag!

Oranage2

jive wrote: »

The animated thing they do to determine if the ball is over the line or not showed it wasn't over the line on ITV. How accurate that is I don't know but anyway!

Those things always have a +/- percentage of error. The more I look at it too I think it was in.

G.K.

Goaline tech isn't video tech.

quarryman

niallo27 wrote: »

Bollox Chelsea had two chances and scored both, liverpool battered them 2nd half.

Your posts are bollox tbh. An embarrassment to other Liverpool fans.

Bitter as ****.

Sgt Pepper 64

copacetic wrote: »

They replayed it twice on espn during the game, he was behind the ball and a yard behind the Chelsea right back also.

ITV showed it 3 times and said he was in front :eek:;)

Just kidding, dont care really, sometimes you get the decsions sometimes you dont

Carroll should have been on much much earlier

G.K.

Oranage2 wrote: »

Those things always have a +/- percentage of error. The more I look at it too I think it was in.

The goalline systems being trialled by IFAB have to be able to garuntee 100% accuracy

Jesus Wept

-Ade- wrote: »

Think that is just after the goalie has hit the ball, it's a frame or two earlier that it's the most...in that it is going to be.

bobmalooka

The ball didn't cross all of the line, the side angle is conclusive if you cant see all of the ball go by the post its not a goal.

I'm amazed that people who watch a lot of football still struggle with this everytime.

ITV are trying their best to get a controversial opinion out of these interviews, I'm glad knowbody is biting.

fullstop

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Carroll looked offside for the first goal - should have been offside cam checked !

He wasn't even close to offside for the goal, he was behind the ball, nevermind Bosingwa

CSF

FWIW, I don't think goalline technology is a good idea. Football should be the same sport, with the same rules from the Premiership to the Slovak Second Division.

wcarey1975

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Carroll looked offside for the first goal - should have been offside cam checked !

He was actually behind Boswinga when he lost the ball. Boswinga was well behind the rest of the chelsea defence.

Sgt Pepper 64

Funny, Cech seemed a lot more sure at the time!

Chelsea goalkeeper Petr Cech:"I don't think it [Andy Carroll's header] was over the line. If the ball was behind the line I could haven't put it out,. I'm sure it was not behind. I haven't seen it but I'm persuaded it wasn't in and I knew it from the first moment. It's fantastic what we've achieved and still have one more final to go and hopefully we can make it two. I've won it for the fourth time and it doesn't matter how many times you win it the atmosphere is always the same."

dfx-

More evidence that video technology is not required...people still arguing despite video evidence too. It wasn't over the line but there'll be some who'll say it was.

It was probably more Spearing coming off and Liverpool being let off the Dalglish leash along with Carroll frightening the life out of Chelsea.

You can't essentially not bother for 64 minutes and go 2-0 down and deserve the equliser though Liverpool should really have got it. It was a 'Blackburn at Spurs' of a performance up to the goal.

Sgt Pepper 64

fullstop wrote: »

He wasn't even close to offside for the goal, he was behind the ball, nevermind Bosingwa

I WAS JOKING!

G.K.

dfx- wrote: »

More evidence that video technology is not required...people still arguing espite video evidence too. It wasn't over the line but there'll be some who'll say it was.

It was probably more Spearing coming off and Liverpool being let off the Dalglish leash along with Carroll frightening the life out of Chelsea.

You can't essentially not bother for 64 minutes and go 2-0 down and deserve the equliser though Liverpool should really have got it. It was a 'Blackburn at Spurs' of a performance up to the goal.

Goaline tech isn't going to be video tech.

wcarey1975

bobmalooka wrote: »

The ball didn't cross all of the line, the side angle is conclusive if you cant see all of the ball go by the post its not a goal.

I'm amazed that people who watch a lot of football still struggle with this everytime.

ITV are trying their best to get a controversial opinion out of these interviews, I'm glad knowbody is biting.

That image would be conclusive if the goalline encompassed the post aswell. Since there is daylight in the camera is at a skewwd angle and as such the above image in not conclusive either way.

Thanx 4 The Fish

The rules and the sport are the same regardless of whether there is goal line technology. How many officials do you have standing on the goal line do you have on a Sunday morning? At a kids game? Nothing would change bar the ability to be sure one way or another.

Samich

lol at Carroll saying that he thought it was in as it hit the underside of the bar and unless it was in it wouldn't have hit the underside of the bar :pac:

Jesus Wept

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

Funny, Cech seemed a lot more sure at the time!

Chelsea goalkeeper Petr Cech:"I don't think it [Andy Carroll's header] was over the line. If the ball was behind the line I could haven't put it out,. I'm sure it was not behind. I haven't seen it but I'm persuaded it wasn't in and I knew it from the first moment. It's fantastic what we've achieved and still have one more final to go and hopefully we can make it two. I've won it for the fourth time and it doesn't matter how many times you win it the atmosphere is always the same."

He may be right but the logic used is spurious.
Matters not anyhow.

Super-Rush

Ah well. Can't win em all.

Well done Chelsea.

Roll on next season.

ShamoBuc

Pity liverpool didn't plat for longer than 35mins but overall Chelsea did what they had to do and won. While it did look like a goal it only bolsters the fact that pool started with the wrong set up, were slow to change formation- both of which greatly aided Chelsea.
Congrats to Chelsea but that was a game pool could have won...such is life.

Dcully

Gutted to lose but very proud of the second half performance from Liverpool.
That match summed up our season for me, half the time terrible half the time excellent.
Spearing proved yet again hes simply not good enough unfortunately.
Big Andy was simply awesome when he came,unplayable and reminded me of his Newcastle days.
Thats why we bought him and thats what i hope to see more of next season.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

homer simpson

Samich wrote: »

lol at Carroll saying that he thought it was in as it hit the underside of the bar and unless it was in it wouldn't have hit the underside of the bar :pac:

Nope he said the back of the bar, not underside of the bar!

Oranage2

G.K. wrote: »

The goalline systems being trialled by IFAB have to be able to garuntee 100% accuracy

They say that but 100% accuracy is impossible. Even looking at hawk eye they use in tennis and that has 3.6mm error range. It's a 5 percent error compared to a tennis ball, compare it to a soccer ball it would probably be less than 1%, I'd work it out but it's a saturday.


Though I agree technology should be used, too much money and too many corrupt officials not to have it.

CSF

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

The rules and the sport are the same regardless of whether there is goal line technology. How many officials do you have standing on the goal line do you have on a Sunday morning? At a kids game? Nothing would change bar the ability to be sure one way or another.

Not referring to Sunday morning football, I'm referring to competitive professional and semi-professional football, featuring clubs who could potentially come up in competitive football against these teams. Leave football as it is. Those who can't enjoy it without obsessing over everything have rugby.

dfx-

G.K. wrote: »

Goaline tech isn't going to be video tech.

Yes, but we're all looking at the same thing with a definitive yes or no answer and coming up with different opinions..there lies the problem..

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Sgt Pepper 64

homer_simpson wrote: »

Nope he said the back of the bar, not underside of the bar!

All this talk of the bar is making me thirsty - time to break open another brewski!

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Sgt Pepper 64

Aquila wrote: »

What year is that? It could be almost any!

niallo27

quarryman wrote: »

Your posts are bollox tbh. An embarrassment to other Liverpool fans.

Bitter as ****.

Man are you stalking me, every where I post your there with a reply, im pissed off, get the **** over it

The Recliner

Fair play Chelsea, the least sh!t of the two teams today and they took their chances

Thanx 4 The Fish

CSF wrote: »

Not referring to Sunday morning football, I'm referring to competitive professional and semi-professional football, featuring clubs who could potentially come up in competitive football against these teams. Leave football as it is. Those who can't enjoy it without obsessing over everything have rugby.

So it is okay not to have the same rules for all of football, nahh, am not having that. Any team in Ireland can end up playing against a top flight team in the cup, does that mean that they should have to play different rules when they come up against the big boys? You are now espousing different rules in different levels of football, which seems to be the opposite of your original assertion.

Masked Man

Didn't cross the line iyam.

Cech is immense.

Turtyturd

Aquila wrote: »

Lol, the poster afraid to post during the match is back.

That_Guy

In summary.

It wasn't a goal and it was a shíte game.