Referee: I Did Chelsea A Favour

Dub13

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/mediawatch/drilldown/MW8087050508-1131.htm


REFEREE: I DID CHELSEA A FAVOUR
Press Report 08 May 2005

The referee in charge of the controversial Champions League semi-final between Liverpool and Chelsea sensationally broke his silence last night, reports The People.

Slovakian Lobos Michel, in an exclusive SP interview, reckons Chelsea were LUCKY to concede the winning goal to Luis Garcia at Anfield on Tuesday night.

He explained: "I believe Chelsea would have preferred the goal to count rather than face a penalty with just ten men for the rest of the game.

"If my assistant referee had not signalled a goal, I would have given a penalty and sent off goalkeeper Petr Cech."

Michel who runs a company flogging car tyres in Bratislava, added: "Jose Mourinho shook my hand after the game and did not complain about the goal. I appreciated his gesture.

"I was quite ready to explain everything, but no-one asked me about the situation. I always answer polite questions.

"I am a good friend of Anders Frisk, but whatever happened between him and Chelsea is in the past. The only thing I go by is what happens on the pitch."

The crescendo of noise from the Anfield crowd cut communications between Michel and Roman Slysco, the linesman who gave the goal. Michel added: "Roman beeped me to signal the foul by Cech, but I didn't know that till later.

"It was the noise from the crowd that stopped me hearing it. I have refereed at places like Barcelona, Ibrox, Manchester United and Arsenal. But I've never in my life been involved in such an atmosphere. It was incredible.

"I did not need the signal from Roman, though. I had already seen the foul and played advantage. There was no doubt in Roman's mind about the goal and he was in the best position to see.

"I chose him to be part of our team and I trust him. He is a heart surgeon and mistaken decisions are not allowed in his job.

"There was not even need to confer. He signalled the goal and sprinted back to the half-way line.

"I have seen the goal scores of times since on TV and have no reason to change my mind. But it would still be fine by me if they brought in technology to decide these things for the World Cup, European Championship and Champions League."

And Michel would be happy if UEFA select him to take charge of future European ties involving English clubs.

He said: "What I like about England is the players are very fair. They don't like to dive, they don't feign injury. Just one yellow card in a match of such intensity shows that.

"Some people were surprised I played six minutes more at the end. I have never given so many before.

"But apart from the subs, I had to take time off for the two people running on the field and the time-wasting by fans keeping the ball."

ferdi

the people is a poxy rag

Emmo

It may be a rag but thats an interview, and a pretty comprehensive one too.

There is not a huge degree of journalistic interpretation there, he even says the headline him self.

Emmo

LegacyUser

And rightly so. Chelsea were lucky.

pickarooney

A nice honest interview and an intelligent refereeing decision.

Cianan2

Sounds like a nice chap. Hes right too, he did do them a big favour. With Cech sent off, im sure 'Pool would've gotten a few more than the one.

mayordenis

Emmo wrote:

It may be a rag but thats an interview, and a pretty comprehensive one too.

There is not a huge degree of journalistic interpretation there, he even says the headline him self.

Emmo

other headlines from the same journalist include,

"Activity participated by some not all"

dudara

It was a smart decision froma referee, and stands-out as an example of intelligent refereeing.

Bowser

Its the one thing I can never get my head around : The advantage rule. Following on from that logic, if someone got punched as they were scoring a goal but the ref played advantage. Would the ref still send the player off for his actions or not because he played an advantage of letting the goal stand?

Shred

I'd take this article with a pinch of salt as I would most tabloid articles, but I did scream for a penalty when the incident happened and I believe one would have been awarded if it weren't for the goal.

uberwolf

Bowser wrote:

Its the one thing I can never get my head around : The advantage rule. Following on from that logic, if someone got punched as they were scoring a goal but the ref played advantage. Would the ref still send the player off for his actions or not because he played an advantage of letting the goal stand?

prob some distinction between foul play and violent conduct. Some of our refs here might provide an opinion?

LFCFan

You can't dispute the interview just because it's in the People.

if someone got punched as they were scoring a goal but the ref played advantage. Would the ref still send the player off for his actions or not because he played an advantage of letting the goal stand?

It happens all the time. A player fouls someone, that someone still get's the ball away, advantage is played and then when play stops the Ref goes back and books the player for the foul. Playing advantage is a great rule. Keeps games flowing and teams still get free's etc even if they were allowed to play on. As long as it doesn't get like rugby where advantage can go for ages!

The Muppet

LFCFan wrote:

You can't dispute the interview just because it's in the People.



It happens all the time. A player fouls someone, that someone still get's the ball away, advantage is played and then when play stops the Ref goes back and books the player for the foul. Playing advantage is a great rule. Keeps games flowing and teams still get free's etc even if they were allowed to play on. As long as it doesn't get like rugby where advantage can go for ages!

Playing advantage is one thing but to award a goal when the ball didn't cross the line is just a tad too much advantage imo. The ref's job is to "police" the game by the rulebook not do favours for either team.

galwaydude

well didnt the same thing happen a certain UTD whereby it was not given even though it was a goal against Spurs

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

Playing advantage is one thing but to award a goal when the ball didn't cross the line is just a tad too much advantage imo.

Yes it is but that is not what he said.

He awarded the goal on the strength of his linesmans decision:

"There was no doubt in Roman's mind about the goal and he was in the best position to see.

"I chose him to be part of our team and I trust him. He is a heart surgeon and mistaken decisions are not allowed in his job.

"There was not even need to confer. He signalled the goal and sprinted back to the half-way line.

"I have seen the goal scores of times since on TV and have no reason to change my mind."

Seems reasonable enough to me.

dudara

The Muppet wrote:

Playing advantage is one thing but to award a goal when the ball didn't cross the line is just a tad too much advantage imo. The ref's job is to "police" the game by the rulebook not do favours for either team.

The linesman was of the opinion that the ball had crossed the line, thus a goal was awarded. It doesn't matter whether it really did or was just a millimeter away. The ref played by the rulebook.

This 3-D extrapolation stuff that Andy gray did on Sky is flawed and only an indicator of what could have happened. As we don't truly know, we have to abide by the refs decision

The Muppet

galwaydude wrote:

well didnt the same thing happen a certain UTD whereby it was not given even though it was a goal against Spurs

Yes it did but you didn't get anyone arguing that he had done Spurs a favour.

dudara wrote:

The linesman was of the opinion that the ball had crossed the line, thus a goal was awarded. It doesn't matter whether it really did or was just a millimeter away. The ref played by the rulebook.

This 3-D extrapolation stuff that Andy gray did on Sky is flawed and only an indicator of what could have happened. As we don't truly know, we have to abide by the refs decision

I'm sure it matters to Chelsea. It's not the first time a goal has been awarded wrongly as mistakes happen but to justify it by claiming the ref actually did Chelsea a favour is funny.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

Yes it did but you didn't get anyone arguing that he had done Spurs a favour.

You know as well as I do that that scenario is completely different to the Liverpool one. Of course it was not a favour to Spurs.

Besides (to the person who originally referenced it) that scenario is completely irrelevant to this discussion and doesnt help it in anyway.

The Muppet wrote:

I'm sure it matters to Chelsea. It's not the first time a goal has been awarded wrongly as mistakes happen but to justify it by claiming the ref actually did Chelsea a favour is funny.

The ref didnt try to justify it by saying he did Chelsea a favour. The only crowd who mentioned the word favour was "The People".

The ref said that he believed Chelsea would have preferred the goal situation, but that was irrelevant, because the linesman ruled that it to be a goal anyway.