View Full Version : Evidence that the ball didnt cross the line!
TheCristianoRonaldo
04 May 2005, 09:47 PM
http://www.argyrou.com/cheat.wmv
Just thought everyone might want to look at this if you havent seen it.
Milos
04 May 2005, 10:01 PM
Still doesn't really clear anything up, just adds more 'ifs' to the argument. I would hate to be a Chelsea fan looking at this video, its just going to rub it in more.
Eddie26
04 May 2005, 10:01 PM
http://www.argyrou.com/cheat.wmv
Just thought everyone might want to look at this if you havent seen it.
Who cares? We still didn't score when we had to.
655321
04 May 2005, 10:02 PM
http://www.argyrou.com/cheat.wmv
Just thought everyone might want to look at this if you havent seen it.
Yes, absolute proof...courtesy of Andy Gray and a cartoon. :rolleyes:
canzano55
04 May 2005, 10:03 PM
The ref gave Liverpool the benefit of the doubt, thats all. Not exactly fair to Chelsea, but thats the way it goes sometimes.
Personally I thought the play should of stopped after Cechs lunge, and the penatly awarderd accordingly.
Eddie26
04 May 2005, 10:04 PM
Yes, absolute proof...courtesy of Andy Gray and a cartoon. :rolleyes:
What? You wanted hard facts? This is BigSoccer. Assumptions and presumptions are fact!
Soccerballs
04 May 2005, 10:07 PM
The ref gave Liverpool the benefit of the doubt, thats all. Not exactly fair to Chelsea, but thats the way it goes sometimes.
Personally I thought the play should of stopped after Cechs lunge, and the penatly awarderd accordingly.
And also accordingly, a red card to Cech!!!
ronaldinhobr10
04 May 2005, 10:16 PM
that ball definitely did not go passed the line....but football is football and this happens at times
but who cares liverpool deserve it!
it would have been a penalty anyway and they would most likely have scored.....so same thing
SuperElf
04 May 2005, 10:33 PM
http://www.argyrou.com/cheat.wmv
Just thought everyone might want to look at this if you havent seen it.As to Andy's assertion that the foul should have been on Baros for the high boot, I call bullcrap as well. Yes, his boot was chest high when he made contact with the ball . . . 5 yards in front of Cech. By the time he "got to Cech" (i.e. Cech slammed into him with outstretched arms), he had time to bring his studs down, and get his foot back thigh high or so.
Which, by the way, is further evidence that Cech was late in his "challenge" and should have been sent off.
The media are trying to keep this thing alive so they have something to talk about until the election results. Nothing more, nothing less. If ONE Chelsea player threw a fit at the time, maybe I'd have a little more sympathy. (Maybe they were all just grateful they got to carry on with ten men . . .)
laudrup
04 May 2005, 10:44 PM
Personally I thought the play should of stopped after Cechs lunge, and the penatly awarderd accordingly.
Rules say (and this is a VERY basic one) that the one situation where you NEVER play on, under any circumstance, is if there has been a penalty foul.
The ref can't have forgotten this rule, since it's very simple: if you see a foul inside the box, you always call it, end of story. There's no room to wiggle out of it. it follows that he didn't actually think that Cech had fouled Baros. So all this Chelsea bitching about the ref is kinda hypocritical since it ignores the fact that exactly 2 seconds before he awarded a dubious goal, he let Chelsea get away without a penalty and red card for the keeper. How we love you, Mourinho. You're the soccer equivalent of Bill O'Reilly.
TheCristianoRonaldo
05 May 2005, 01:25 AM
Yes, absolute proof...courtesy of Andy Gray and a cartoon. :rolleyes:
I posted this just so everyone could see it. Take it as you will. Just trying to shed some more light on the situation.
Personally I think it should have been a penalty for Liverpool after Cech tackled Baros. If the ref would have gotten the call right in the first place there would be no controversy.
Icarus_222
05 May 2005, 03:50 AM
A penalty fine, but the ref didn't call a penalty the linesman called a goal for Liverpool which didn't seem to have been the case. Just cause it was a penalty does not mean that it was then a 100% chance of a goal.
The ESPN colour commentator seemed to think that "it's a goal no doubt". I was wondering what it was he was smoking because that ball did not go over the entire line.
BTFOOM
05 May 2005, 09:16 AM
that ball definitely did not go passed the line....but football is football and this happens at times
but who cares liverpool deserve it!
it would have been a penalty anyway and they would most likely have scored.....so same thing
There is no (credible) way you can say the ball definately did not go "passed" the line. Computer generated graphics only spit out what was put in by the programmers. During the game, I thought it had gone in but I wasn't sure.
BocaFan
05 May 2005, 10:27 AM
There is no (credible) way you can say the ball definately did not go "passed" the line. Computer generated graphics only spit out what was put in by the programmers. During the game, I thought it had gone in but I wasn't sure.
IF you know the position of all the TV cameras then it should just be a matter of simple geometry. However, I doubt anybody went to the effort of getting the exact position of the various cameras as well as the goal-line.
So, yeah, probably guesswork here.
The Potter
05 May 2005, 10:34 AM
IF you know the position of all the TV cameras then it should just be a matter of simple geometry. However, I doubt anybody went to the effort of getting the exact position of the various cameras as well as the goal-line.
So, yeah, probably guesswork here.
They did and apparently it didn't cross the line by 3.4cm (i think) according to ch 4 news.
kevbrunton
05 May 2005, 11:11 AM
Rules say (and this is a VERY basic one) that the one situation where you NEVER play on, under any circumstance, is if there has been a penalty foul.
The ref can't have forgotten this rule, since it's very simple: if you see a foul inside the box, you always call it, end of story. There's no room to wiggle out of it. it follows that he didn't actually think that Cech had fouled Baros. So all this Chelsea bitching about the ref is kinda hypocritical since it ignores the fact that exactly 2 seconds before he awarded a dubious goal, he let Chelsea get away without a penalty and red card for the keeper. How we love you, Mourinho. You're the soccer equivalent of Bill O'Reilly.
Sorry - but you are patently wrong here. If the ball is going into the net or potentially going into the net, I'm going to wait a second or two before blowing the whistle - and yes, I am a referee. Advantage can occur at any time under any circumstances. So, in this case, the referee handled it perfectly - he waited a couple seconds, saw his AR award the goal and he gave it. If the AR indicated no goal, whistle blows and we have a PK.
onefineesq
05 May 2005, 11:23 AM
Sorry - but you are patently wrong here. If the ball is going into the net or potentially going into the net, I'm going to wait a second or two before blowing the whistle - and yes, I am a referee. Advantage can occur at any time under any circumstances. So, in this case, the referee handled it perfectly - he waited a couple seconds, saw his AR award the goal and he gave it. If the AR indicated no goal, whistle blows and we have a PK. Not necessarily, because he should have gone back and sent Cech off for the last man foul. Is there any rule preventing him from sending Cech off because the goal was scored anyway? Bottom line here is that Chelsea have no reason to complain. If there is no goal, there is a penalty kick and Cech is gone. probably one to nothing anyway AND they are playing a man down. As it is, they most likely gained an advantage by the play being called a goal in the run of play.
Sachsen
05 May 2005, 11:35 AM
Bottom line here is that Chelsea have no reason to complain.
Especially since they went for about 190 minutes without scoring a single goal themselves.
BocaFan
05 May 2005, 11:35 AM
Not necessarily, because he should have gone back and sent Cech off for the last man foul. Is there any rule preventing him from sending Cech off because the goal was scored anyway? Bottom line here is that Chelsea have no reason to complain. If there is no goal, there is a penalty kick and Cech is gone. probably one to nothing anyway AND they are playing a man down. As it is, they most likely gained an advantage by the play being called a goal in the run of play.
The "last man foul" you are referring to is more accurately described as the "denying a clear scoring opportunity foul". Since Cech did NOT do that (they scored anyway), then he should not get a red-card.
puromorelia
05 May 2005, 11:58 AM
IF you know the position of all the TV cameras then it should just be a matter of simple geometry. However, I doubt anybody went to the effort of getting the exact position of the various cameras as well as the goal-line.
So, yeah, probably guesswork here.
FORGET camera angles, just look at the replay and you'll see the
chelsea defender has his right foot outside the goal line, NOT EVEN
on it ! and his right leg or foot is not foo far from his left and thats
the one he used to kick the ball out ! if you have ever played soccer
before or still do, you know just by looking at that replay, that the
ball DID NOT entirely cross that line as the rules states for it to be
awarded a goal !
either way chelsea blew plenty of opportunities and did not score
a single goal playing at home to take an advantage into this final
game so they blew it, simple as that !