Liverpool - Chelsea [R]

[DJT]

Despite amacpher's "evidence", I'm still not convinced that it was a goal. I'm also bewildered by the fact that there was no camera along the goal line.

I'm going to go against the grain here, but I don't think there was a penalty on the play. After this discussion came up I watched that part several times and I think the Liverpool player was in the air as he met the GK and then just fell to the ground. I don't think the GK took him down; he didn't even react that way after he fell.

Also, I don't agree with the argument that "Chelsea couldn't score anyway". The early goal changed the complexion of the game. From that point on Liverpool played defensively. Who knows what would have happened had they been forced to keep things open in search of a goal.

By the way, I wanted Liverpool to win.

quote:Originally posted by River City

As for the penalty/red card, shouldn't that be called regardless of whether or not the ball goes in?

No, play can continue if the referee determines that it is to the advantage of the team against which the foul was committed. But a card could still be given afterwards.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by DJT

No, play can continue if the referee determines that it is to the advantage of the team against which the foul was committed. But a card could still be given afterwards.

The way I understand it, is that a red card is produced when a foul eliminates a clear chance on goal. But that was not the case here (they scored anyway).

[Michael Crampton]

Okay, first off that article is by the f'ing Sun the same piece of sh!t rag that published the "truth" about Hillsborough. It's got about as much credibility as the National Enquirer.

Secondly, screw Chelsea. They got lucky in the league cup final, broke Alonso's ankle, got lucky in the league game at Anfield, got Alonso unfairly suspended for the game and have the worst fans in the league - Stamford Bridge was a tomb during the first leg.

There is no way to tell whether that was a goal or not from any of the angles provided. This is not Roy Caroll or anything even close. It certainly doesn't "look" like the ball's over the line but camera angles can be very deceiving - I don't now how many times I've thought that a defender's clearance was flying into the back of the net when instead it was practically going the other direction. I thought the same thing amacpher when I saw the replay: judging from the position of Gallas' left foot it's hard to see how ball couldn't be in the net already. In the end it's impossible though. The linesman called it a goal ergo it was a goal. And that should have been a penalty and red card anyways.

Mike.

[Massive Attack]

Is the Guardian respectable enough for you?

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,1476855,00.html

They also ran a story about the use of missile technology to prove it wasn't a goal.

[Rivaldo]

quote:Originally posted by DJT

Despite amacpher's "evidence", I'm still not convinced that it was a goal. I'm also bewildered by the fact that there was no camera along the goal line.

UEFA doesn't allow cameras in the goal.

There is no way Sky Sports computer model of the incident could be accurate enough to tell for sure if it was a goal. The camera positions would have to be very accurately calibrated to do that sort of triangulation with enough accuracy.

quote:I'm going to go against the grain here, but I don't think there was a penalty on the play. After this discussion came up I watched that part several times and I think the Liverpool player was in the air as he met the GK and then just fell to the ground. I don't think the GK took him down; he didn't even react that way after he fell.

I watched it in slow motion and it was a penalty. Cech was moving toward Baros when they collided and Cech never touched the ball. That's a foul.

The reason I think it was a goal is because of Garcia's reaction. He was running along the goal line as the ball was crossing and had the best view (other than possibly Gallas's). He started to celebrate instantly.

[DJT]

quote:Originally posted by Rivaldo

UEFA doesn't allow cameras in the goal.

I didn't mean in the goal, I meant along the goal line - like behind the corner flag or something. We see this angle all the time. Not that it would have been definitive in this case, and Gallas may very well have blocked the view, but the angle should still be available.

quote:I watched it in slow motion and it was a penalty. Cech was moving toward Baros when they collided and Cech never touched the ball. That's a foul.

I watched the same replays, in slow motion as well, and I think (this word (I said word, not activity) is so underused ) it wasn't a penalty. Just because there was a collision doesn't mean there has to be a foul.

quote:The reason I think it was a goal is because of Garcia's reaction. He was running along the goal line as the ball was crossing and had the best view (other than possibly Gallas's). He started to celebrate instantly.

You're going to decide based on whether the team that possibly scored celebrated? That doesn't seem right, does it? Of course the offensive player will claim it's a goal while the defensive player will claim it isn't. In Juventus vs. Liverpool, there was a play where the ball was cleared off the Liverpool goal line but a Juventus player, who was standing right there, began celebrating - this happens all the time.

[loyola]

That was a clear penalty, but not a red card offense, maybe a yellow. Cech didn't touch the ball but got the player, imagine the same play but with the ball on the ground passing under Cech and Baros trying to get to the ball but Cech getting in the way, I'm pretty sure it's a penalty.

[Rivaldo]

quote:Originally posted by DJT

I didn't mean in the goal, I meant along the goal line - like behind the corner flag or something. We see this angle all the time.

I don't remember ever seeing shots from a camera lined up with the goal line. Broadcasters like the "in goal" cams because they give dramatic pictures. I doubt they'd use the goal line angle much, if they ever put cameras there. And they'd need four of them to cover situations like this.

quote:Just because there was a collision doesn't mean there has to be a foul.

Correct. If Cech had stopped before the collision it wouldn't have been a foul, but he didn't.

quote:The reason I think it was a goal is because of Garcia's reaction. He was running along the goal line as the ball was crossing and had the best view (other than possibly Gallas's). He started to celebrate instantly.

The difference between these two situations is that Garcia had a perfect view from the goal line. I don't think his reaction would have been instant if he was trying decieve the ref by celebrating a goal that wasn't.

[canadiankick97]

I think that the biggest reason the goal was called was because the penalty wasn't called. I think both the ref and the linesman froze on the Cech foul and then just decided it would be easier to call it a goal just to balance it out, an excuse to give in, as it were.

[River City]

quote:

The reason I think it was a goal is because of Garcia's reaction. He was running along the goal line as the ball was crossing and had the best view (other than possibly Gallas's). He started to celebrate instantly.

Yeah, that's right. Players would never stoop to such levels as deceing a ref in order to get a favourable call. Totti never dives.