Arsenal v Liverpool mnf 8pm sky sports 1

JustTheOne

Not having a go at Liverpool because you take what you can and don't argue.

But that's 4 points they have gained because of 2 poor decisions.

Happens to every team though.

Grayditch

It's true. I'm sure we'll have some go against us. You'll hear us a lot louder then, though.

tayto lover

AdamD wrote: »

Ozil's getting criticism? Christ the lad ran the 2nd half, do people actually watch these games or do they just post?

I don't believe some of those criticising Ozil are actually football fans at all.
They seem quite ignorant of the finer points of the game.
Ozil is also thinking too fast for some of the players he's playing with. Messi would love playing with him.

efb

greendom wrote: »

And against Bournemouth. Maybe part of Rodgers defensive strategy is to buy a linesman?

Better than the money he spent on some players...

efb

rob316 wrote: »

Spot on, he shows glimpses but for £40m if I was an arsenal supporter I would be distinctly underwhelmed.

How much was that Newcastle stinker,..., I mean striker, again...

Grayditch

The sound of alley cats. Cya after, good game lads.

Nerdlingr

jester77 wrote: »

Of course it was a bad decision. He was clearly onside and the linesman got it totally wrong. How is that not a bad decision, it cost Arsenal the 3 points.

He wasnt clearly onside at all. He was level with Skrtel in a split second decision. It wasnt like Skrtel was 3 yards behind his defensive line playing him onside. :rolleyes:

Rayne Wooney

Can't help but think if Arsenal had a proper striker they would have won that game by a few

What's with Giroud going airborne when he's kicking a ball, he wasted two great chances

MightyMandarin

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Can't help but wish if Arsenal had a proper striker they would have won that game by a few

fyp

Corholio

I don't think Ozil ran the game in the second half as much as somepeople are saying. I think he had a lot of the ball in the second half and got play way quicker than the first half but I think he's there to do a bit more than just that. I don't have any criticism of Ozil at all really, just that I don't think he was fantastic or anything like that.

Hate this ignorance that if you criticise or even just don't circle jerk about players, you don't 'realise aspects' of the game and such utter nonsense as if they are playing professional football every week themselves.

jester77

Nerdlingr wrote: »

He wasnt clearly onside at all. He was level with Skrtel in a split second decision. It wasnt like Skrtel was 3 yards behind his defensive line playing him onside. :rolleyes:

You should look up how the offside rule works :rolleyes:

efb

@TransferSite: If Petr Cech was a cat. http://t.co/Vv6kdOX65L

rob316

efb wrote: »

How much was that Newcastle stinker,..., I mean striker, again...

Carroll he was awful but no fan as any problem saying so. Ozil seems immune to criticism its strange

rob316

rob316 wrote: »

Carroll he was awful but no fan as any problem saying so. Ozil seems immune to criticism its strange

Errrr.... He's had nothing but criticism from the moment he joined the club. There are a few arsenal players who seem immune to criticism, he definitely isn't one of them.

Ozil is a nice to have player. Just not consistent enough.


On another note, Neville had harsh enough words for the current Arsenal crop of players.

efb

Fair criticism is one thing, but Özil seems to attract it by the bucket load, and it's rarely fair

Alfred Borden

Santi is like the anti Ozil. Contributes very little again but he runs round a lot so escapes the media.

greendom

Alfred Borden wrote: »

Santi is like the anti Ozil. Contributes very little again but he runs round a lot so escapes the media.

That's harsh after all the wonderful performances he has put in. He was very poor last night though and is deserving of criticism for that

greendom

rarnes1 wrote: »

Ozil is a nice to have player. Just not consistent enough.


On another note, Neville had harsh enough words for the current Arsenal crop of players.

Ozil is essential to the team.

Alfred Borden

greendom wrote: »

That's harsh after all the wonderful performances he has put in. He was very poor last night though and is deserving of criticism for that

I dont think he is good enough to be shunting Ramsey out wide.

greendom

Alfred Borden wrote: »

I dont think he is good enough to be shunting Ramsey out wide.

I think Ramsey is far too hit and miss to be guaranteed a place above Santi

Alfred Borden

greendom wrote: »

I think Ramsey is far too hit and miss to be guaranteed a place above Santi

He brings goals to the team from the B2B position which is so important at the moment with Giroud not doing the business.

greendom

Alfred Borden wrote: »

He brings goals to the team from the B2B position which is so important at the moment with Giroud not doing the business.

He scored a lovely goal from out wide last night from a beautifully weighted Santi pass !;)

Nerdlingr

jester77 wrote: »

You should look up how the offside rule works :rolleyes:

I know how it works. You should probably read the post better, might give you a greater understanding of what was written. :rolleyes:

Iused2likebusts

JustTheOne wrote: »

Not having a go at Liverpool because you take what you can and don't argue.

But that's 4 points they have gained because of 2 poor decisions.

Happens to every team though.

3 points the win against bournemouth wouldve been a draw.

jester77

Nerdlingr wrote: »

I know how it works. You should probably read the post better, might give you a greater understanding of what was written. :rolleyes:

Maybe you should read your post, actually let me help you as it seems to be a bit challenging to understand things.

Nerdlingr wrote: »

He wasnt clearly onside at all. He was level with Skrtel in a split second decision. It wasnt like Skrtel was 3 yards behind his defensive line playing him onside. :rolleyes:

I've gone to the trouble of looking up the rules for you, page 36, Law 11, second paragraph.

A player is not in an offside position if:
• he is in his own half of the field of play or
• he is level with the second-last opponent or
• he is level with the last two opponents

He was level, so clearly onside.

Connavar

jester77 wrote: »

Maybe you should read your post, actually let me help you as it seems to be a bit challenging to understand things.



I've gone to the trouble of looking up the rules for you, page 36, Law 11, second paragraph.



He was level, so clearly onside.

Its the use of the word clearly that is the problem here. For the tv watcher who can get freeze frames and slow mo of course he is clearly onside.
But from the linesmans point of view with a split second call its not clear at all

Osmosis Jones

I actually think at the moment, and from last season, Cazorla is one of Arsenal's most important players. Fantastic lad and with some consistency too.

Nerdlingr

jester77 wrote: »

Maybe you should read your post, actually let me help you as it seems to be a bit challenging to understand things.



I've gone to the trouble of looking up the rules for you, page 36, Law 11, second paragraph.



He was level, so clearly onside.

Ah jaysus. You're missing my point.
Here, let me spell it out for you....

I know he was onside.
What I'm saying it wasnt a clear as decision as you make it out to be.
He was LEVEL with Skrtel hence Ramsey wasnt CLEARLY onside.

(I put in it bold and italics just to help ya along)

Nerdlingr

Connavar wrote: »

Its the use of the word clearly that is the problem here. For the tv watcher who can get freeze frames and slow mo of course he is clearly onside.
But from the linesmans point of view with a split second call its not clear at all

Thank you.

jester77

Connavar wrote: »

Its the use of the word clearly that is the problem here. For the tv watcher who can get freeze frames and slow mo of course he is clearly onside.
But from the linesmans point of view with a split second call its not clear at all

I agree, it can be difficult for linesmen in situations like this. He got it wrong on this occasion, but it can't be said that Ramsey was clearly offside as he wasn't.

Quazzie

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Ah jaysus. You're missing my point.
Here, let me spell it out for you....

I know he was onside.
What I'm saying it wasnt a clear as decision as you make it out to be.
He was LEVEL with Skrtel hence Ramsey wasnt CLEARLY onside.

(I put in it bold and italics just to help ya along)

He was a foot onside as the ball was kicked. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

The linesman missed it, but that still doesn't change the fact he was clearly onside.

Nerdlingr

jester77 wrote: »

I agree, it can be difficult for linesmen in situations like this. He got it wrong on this occasion, but it can't be said that Ramsey was clearly offside as he wasn't.

Who said he was clearly offside?

Turtyturd

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

3 points the win against bournemouth wouldve been a draw.

And surely in this game of petty make believe Arsenal would be on 2points and no wins following Sanchez's foul for the winner against Palace.

L'prof

Sickening really. Drives me mad that decisions like these continue to have such a big influence on games when technology is so far along these days. No need for it.

http://streamable.com/jb9a

Nerdlingr

Quazzie wrote: »

He was a foot onside as the ball was kicked. Doesn't get much clearer than that.

The linesman missed it, but that still doesn't change the fact he was clearly onside.

I stand by my original post, he wasnt clearly onside.
Yes he was onside and the goal should have stood but its not a clear decison for the linesmans to make in that split second. He's level or a foot onside, as you say, in that split second. Its not as clear cut decison as yer making out.

Quazzie

Turtyturd wrote: »

And surely in this game of petty make believe Arsenal would be on 2points and no wins following Sanchez's foul for the winner against Palace.

In the scenario you describe, we'd have 5 points because we'd have won last night.

Turtyturd

Quazzie wrote: »

In the scenario you describe, we'd have 5 points because we'd have won last night.

It's a make believe scenario, you can have Benzema score the winner if you want.

Connavar

Quazzie wrote: »

In the scenario you describe, we'd have 5 points because we'd have won last night.

Its all ifs and buts really. Whos to say arsenal scoring wouldn't have spurred liverpool on more to score themselves(or vice versa)?
Only time you can categorically say a decision was the difference is when its a last second penalty call that decides the game

Unless they bring in a shed load of really complex video reffing these will always occur and for some, its part of the fun of the game

Osmosis Jones

Every team has decisions go for them and against them from time to time. Sometimes the decisions are ridiculous, this one is not. It was a tight decision that the linesman got wrong. It was not obvious without replay. It happens, take it on the chin and move on.

Quazzie

Turtyturd wrote: »

It's a make believe scenario, you can have Benzema score the winner if you want.

And you can make Liverpool a team capable of winning a trophy.

Go on ya might aswell enjoy yourself kid!

ronjo

I know I am not a mod but maybe time to close this thing as its going very swiftly downhill...

Grayditch

Just for the record Cech said their was some luck involved in him saving the Benteke shot. Thought you might like that.

Knex*

Quazzie wrote: »

In the scenario you describe, we'd have 5 points because we'd have won last night.

Nah. Penalty would have been given for Gabriel on Benteke.

You're fairly salty about the whole game in general. Relax. A draw was a fair result.

greendom

Knex. wrote: »

Nah. Penalty would have been given for Gabriel on Benteke.

You're fairly salty about the whole game in general. Relax. A draw was a fair result.

And Giroud would have won 2 pens - what's the score now, I've lost count

Quazzie

Knex. wrote: »

Nah. Penalty would have been given for Gabriel on Benteke.

You're fairly salty about the whole game in general. Relax. A draw was a fair result.

What about the penalty (penalties???) for the foul(s) on Giroud?

Nerdlingr

Dont forget the penalty for coutinho.
Whats the score now ? 5-5 ?? Great game!

Connavar

Connavar wrote: »

Its the use of the word clearly that is the problem here. For the tv watcher who can get freeze frames and slow mo of course he is clearly onside.
But from the linesmans point of view with a split second call its not clear at all

If there's any doubt, they should lean towards the attacking side, IMO. I'm sure everyone would rather see goals given with someone fractionally offside, than perfectly fine goals disallowed.

Connavar

Basil3 wrote: »

If there's any doubt, they should lean towards the attacking side, IMO. I'm sure everyone would rather see goals given with someone fractionally offside, than perfectly fine goals disallowed.

I agree with you, though we have to remember that the linesman may not have had any doubt about the call when he made it. It still comes down to human error at the end of the day

super_furry

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Dont forget the penalty for coutinho.
Whats the score now ? 5-5 ?? Great game!

Don't forget, Mignolet would have saved two penalties but Cech only one.