[Archived] Rovers 0-1 Liverpool

[waggy]

As someone else said to me, if a forward, in the opposition box, with the ball coming towards him is NOT interfering with play, what on earth is he being paid for?

400016[/snapback]

ask dickov

[philipl]

Of course, if Neill had scythed through Cisse to get at the ball, it wouldn't have been a penalty as Cisse wasn't interfering....

[Rover4ever]

Of course, if Neill had scythed through Cisse to get at the ball, it wouldn't have been a penalty as Cisse wasn't interfering....

400031[/snapback]

That reminds me of Neill's horror challenge on Cisse. What exactly was he thinking?

It was a lot like his challenge that broke Carraghers leg 2 years back, and if Cisse broke his leg again, I shudder to think of the bad press we would have had (which thankfully has almost disappeared this season)

[yawnsie]

As someone on that ref forum says, if a whole load of qualified referees can't come to a consensus about the rule, given all the time they want to think it over, something must be wrong. Oh well, the ref probably knew that if he didn't give the decision, Rick Parry would pull his usual trick and throw a tantum until he got his own way.

[Ianrally]

As someone else said to me, if a forward, in the opposition box, with the ball coming towards him is NOT interfering with play, what on earth is he being paid for?

400016[/snapback]

As the late great Bill Shankley once said, "If one of my players is not interfering with play then I bloody well want to know why"

[tucker]

All this crapola about the new law being wrong and difficult to interpret is a complete red herring imo.

The fact is the officials got the decision wrong, plain and simple, end of.

Cisse pulled away from/ missed the ball by the merest of fractions. Of course he was "active" if that's what you want to call it. Was he moving away from the ball or clearly trying to get back onside? Was he hellers like.

Would the goal have stood had it been us on the attack and Chelski ManUre Arsenal or Liverpool on the receiving end? We all know the answer to that one I think. 

399937[/snapback]

Well exactly, tottally agree.

For me it was certainly offside.

For those people (on other sites) who are quoting laws and supporting the official on a technicality are slightly missing the point.

How often do you see the flag go up in situations where players are certainly less active than Cisse was, I saw one such incident in the Bolton game last night, you really do wonder what would have happened had the situation developed at the other end.

The simple truth is, a referee/linesman who makes a mistake against a top club comes under much more scrutiny and criticism than a mistake against a lesser team, due to the bigger column inches the bigger clubs command and generally speaking the lost points could cost that club.

It's just the reality we must live with.

[Eddie]

What I found most annoying though was the TV coverage who justified it by saying we had a goal allowed against Wigan that should have been disallowed and so it all evens itself out in the end.

[Exiled_Rover]

What I found most annoying though was the TV coverage who justified it by saying we had a goal allowed against Wigan that should have been disallowed and so it all evens itself out in the end.

400163[/snapback]

Exactly, I can think of two sending offs, a handball, and a throw in that all went against us.

[Eddie]

Not to mention the disallowed goal in that very game that could have given us the lead.

[RovertheHill]

That refs forum is a shocker. If they can't see that the only reason Cisse didn't touch the ball is because he's sh*te then it certainly adds to fuel to the argument that you need to have played the game to referee the game (as opposed to being the school spanner who nobody picked). The annoying fact is, if Cisse had any ability whatsoever he would have touched that ball and the goal wouldn't have stood

[Eddie]

I disagree with you there. I think he did go for the ball before realising what he was doing and deciding to pull his foot back, I have no doubt that he could have touched it had he wanted to. However, this doesn't change the fact that he was offside, even if he hadn't made that move he should have been called offside.

[RovertheHill]

Well it's about opinions I guess. I think he clearly tried to play the ball and then put his arms up when he realised that missing it put Morientes in. Nothing I've seen of Cisse in English football would convince me that he has the foresight and vision to do what he did deliberately.

[Exiled_Rover]

Well it's about opinions I guess.  I think he clearly tried to play the ball and then put his arms up when he realised that missing it put Morientes in.  Nothing I've seen of Cisse in English football would convince me that he has the foresight and vision to do what he did deliberately.

400173[/snapback]

Watch the slow motion replay, he clearly stops his foot and pulls it away from the ball, despite it being easily within reach. This was followed by a quick 'didn't touch it ref' hand jesture. He probably got a shout from Morientes

[roversmum]

I've just read the posts on the ref's forum that have been posted since I read it yesterday.

It's the biggest load of tosh I've seen in a long time, especially judging the speed in which most ARs raise their flag as soon as a player darts out from behind a defender. Yet if he was already standing beyond the defenders waiting surely this could be deemed as not offside from what they are saying? The ball was actually being played to Cisse it seemed and I can't see how he wasn't interfering with play (yes I know about touching the ball, okay then, he was trying to decieve). He knew exactly what he was about and got the intended result.

Personally I don't blame Lucas for the 'killer' tackle on Cisse which was right in front of me and believe me, it wasn't one of Lucas's 'specials'.

That (very rude word which I wish I could say) Cisse cheated and got the points from the previous match by getting Zura sent off, and he's done it again. I'm busy thinking of retribution but haven't thought of anything strong enough . Especially when you think if it wasn't for our guys he'd have lost that leg after the accident last year.

GGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. *Stamps foot*

Edited April 19, 2006 by roversmum

[AggyBlue]

Also, ask yourself if we would have got the decision if it had been at the other end.

Everyone on here knows the answer.

Until major controversial decisions are double checked by a fifth official sat in a darkened room, viewing a monitor, the big clubs will always rob the smaller clubs of the points.

[thenodrog]

As someone else said to me, if a forward, in the opposition box, with the ball coming towards him is NOT interfering with play, what on earth is he being paid for?

400016[/snapback]

Crikey you a medium or something? That quote (although incorrect) is attributed to Brian Clough many years ago.

[thenodrog]

Also, ask yourself if we would have got the decision if it had been at the other end.

Everyone on here knows the answer.

400197[/snapback]

If I rem correctly Bellamy had just had a right old whinge at the other linesman for being flagged offside on the left side of the pitch. Can any sky viewers enlighten us on this?

[Jan]

I've just read the posts on the ref's forum that have been posted since I read it yesterday.

It's the biggest load of tosh I've seen in a long time, especially judging the speed in which most ARs raise their flag as soon as a player darts out from behind a defender.  Yet if he was already standing beyond the defenders waiting surely this could be deemed as not offside from what they are saying?  The ball was actually being played to Cisse it seemed and I can't see how he wasn't interfering with play (yes I know about touching the ball, okay then, he was trying to decieve).  He knew exactly what he was about and got the intended result.

Personally I don't blame Lucas for the 'killer'  tackle on Cisse which was right in front of me and believe me, it wasn't one of Lucas's 'specials'. 

That (very rude word which I wish I could say) Cisse cheated and got the points from the previous match by getting Zura sent off, and he's done it again.  I'm busy thinking of retribution but haven't thought of anything strong enough  .  Especially when you think if it wasn't for our guys he'd have lost that leg after the accident last year.   

GGGGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.  *Stamps foot*

400180[/snapback]

I missed the remainder of the first half as I tried to work out a way of hurting the linesman and referee very badly while NOT getting 1) arrested or 2) banned from Ewood for life.

[waggy]

reading that ref's forum give us all a clue why ref's are clowns,they actyually think they are the reason the crowd turn up.i reckon every premier league team must send a retiring player to become a ref,because these clowns are ruining the game

[92er]

I missed the remainder of the first half as I tried to work out a way of hurting the linesman and referee very badly while NOT getting 1) arrested or 2) banned from Ewood for life.

400260[/snapback]

Were you successful and what did you come up with?

[Jan]

No, unfortunately (was going out for dinner so couldn't be bothered to wait and threaten them afterwards).

However I still think my original idea (thought when Kidd was manager) was the best. Each week, you put one of the players who are NEVER going to play for us again on the bench (now it's- for example Amoruso, it used to be the likes of Simon Grayson and Egil Ostenstad). You plant baseball bats around the ground. if the ref or linesman is having a mare, the useless sub goes to warm up, grabs the baseball bat when the lino/ref comes near and decks them- ensuring that they won't be able to continue.

They get banned (not a problem- they're never going to play again) and we get a different ref/lino who MIGHT have learned their lesson! It would only take a couple for them to learn to think about their decisions.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Jan

[Eddie]

Crikey you a medium or something?  That quote (although incorrect) is attributed to Brian Clough many years ago.

400255[/snapback]

Isn't the Clough quote something like if he isn't interfering with play then what is he doing on the pitch?

[adopted scouser]

The coiner of the much-quoted phrase was in fact White Hart Lane legend Bill Nicholson in his days as manager at the club, - and not Bill Shankly.

Shankly's wordy take on the situation was in fact "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be." Which is completely different.

[tcj_jones]

No, unfortunately (was going out for dinner so couldn't be bothered to wait and threaten them afterwards).

However I still think my original idea (thought when Kidd was manager) was the best.  Each week, you put one of the players who are NEVER going to play for us again on the bench (now it's- for example Amoruso, it used to be the likes of Simon Grayson and Egil Ostenstad).  You plant baseball bats around the ground.  if the ref or linesman is having a mare, the useless sub goes to warm up, grabs the baseball bat when the lino/ref comes near and decks them- ensuring that they won't be able to continue.

They get banned (not a problem- they're never going to play again) and we get a different ref/lino who MIGHT have learned their lesson!  It would only take a couple for them to learn to think about their decisions.

400268[/snapback]

Haha, great stuff

[yawnsie]

Only problem with that is that Amo would probably strain his groin picking up the bat.