Sunday, June 12, 2005

Chelsea – Liverpool Champions League 2nd leg, was it a goal?

Enough time has gone by to re-dress a problem in football because it happened in a hi-stakes match.

I’m not looking to re-hash the past, my point has nothing to do with the teams involved but the importance of the game and the fact that its not clear if the ball went in the net or not back in May, during the second leg clash between Chelsea and Liverpool.

It’s the most fundamental part of the game and we are leaving it up to a linesman that must see a ball thru the net and a match referee often in front of a crowd of players.

Introducing goal line cameras, which is something I’ve called for earlier in the season, would remove this problem. Friends have complained that it would take the human element out of the game, but I think this is one human element that needs to go.

Was it a goal? I don’t know, I couldn’t tell, I don’t think anyone could except for Peter Cech. And that’s the point, a camera would make sure.


Post a Comment

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldnt tell either

6/12/2005 7:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't look like it to me, and the players reactions indicate that it wasn't...

6/12/2005 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it wasnt given a goal cech would have been sent off and a penalty given.. So does it really matter

6/12/2005 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But since when does a penalty equal a certain goal. Cudicini could have come on and saved it, and 10-men Chelsea still would have had a decent chance.

6/12/2005 8:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes it does matter had the referee been consitent. Remember how Drogba got sent off in the Barcelona clash because he raised his leg too high?? That also goes for Barros. I have seen several articles from the press saying Barros should have got a yellow card and that would have been a free kick for Chelsea.

Btw, that wasn't a goal. In technology we trust ;).

6/12/2005 8:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And if your auntie had ......., she woud be your uncle!

If at the time of the incident Chelsea were given the choice of a goal or the penalty & sending off, I am sure they would have chosen the goal.

As it happens, they still did only produced one shot on target for the rest of the match. Think people need to get over it.

6/12/2005 8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was surely a goal. Check out the link and you will see from the picture that the ball crossed the line.


6/12/2005 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The movie was taken by a Liverpool supporter so it doesn't count. We gotta trust Israeli Missile Technology, which basically has an accuracy of 3 meters (which, incidentally, no newspaper cared to point out!).

I'm surprised that this issue still pops up after it was proven conclusively to be a goal.

6/12/2005 9:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please note the stance of the linesman. If you had the full video, you'd note that the linesman was completely alert the whole time and was perfectly placed to give the decision. This fact, and the video, is of course ignored by the papers, Chelsea players, and particularly Mr Mourinho in his comments of the linesman. Money makes one unbeatable, it seems.

6/12/2005 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh give it a rest.

It's not like it changed things for Chelsea, they would have had to score a goal to win, regardless of Liverpool scoring that one.

Goals change games, if the referee gave it it's fact, if it wasn't given, then regardless wheher Czech would have been sent off, Liverpool would have defended so much because there'd be nothing to defend. They beat Juventus and Milan, so why couldn't they beat Chelsea.

What about Carvalho's foul right at the end of their other game, why aren't you discussing this

Bitter, bitter and very jealous

and not very many fans

6/12/2005 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was a goal based on the video, surely. And look at the linesman in the picture, just like an eagle.

Still, Cech should have been sent-off even after the goal was given, right? The real injustice was to Liverpool rather than Chelsea.

Same case with the final, Gattuso should have been sent off for the foul irregardless of whether a penalty is given or not. If the roles were reversed, I believe Liverpool players would have been sent-off.

6/12/2005 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Kop Kop Kop said...

The fact remains that Chelsea did not score!

Mourinho was counting on the away goal even at Stamford!

Money makes the world turn round! Oh no it doesn't

6/12/2005 9:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Forget about Israeli Missile Software graphics. A simple pen should suffice. You've all been lead by the papers. They naturally want to sell more by generating controversy.


6/12/2005 9:48 AM  
Blogger Football Commentator said...

So would a camera inside the goal posts, similar to what we have with F1 cars, make a difference in settling these sorts of debates?

6/12/2005 9:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rather than cameras, the technology I believe UEFA/FIFA is/are considering is a transmitter inside the ball that will be 'sensed' when it passes beyond the goal line. When sensed, an audible signal will be sent to the ref's earpiece.

Seems an elegant solution to me.

BTW, the ref has commented after the game that he "Did Chelsea a favour. Had I not given the goal, I would have given a penalty and sent Cech off."

Also, to the poster above, Cudicini couldn't come on until after play had resumed, which would be after the penalty had been taken.

Either way, you are 1-0 down, and maybe lucky to have had 10 men on the pitch.

With the 11 men, you didn't look like scoring - except at the end of the 6 minutes overtime.

6/12/2005 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chelsea Fans eh?

Probably the most stupid fans in the world

6/12/2005 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

for chrissake all you new glory hunter chelski fans....give it a rest will ya! you are going to win a lot more trophies over the next few years by buying your way to success. Stop being so bitter and twisted, if the goal hadn't been given, the facts are
1. Cech whould have walked.
2. one of the outfield players would have been obliged to go in goal as Cudicini couldn't come on until play had stopped.
3. you would have gone 1 down and would have being forced to play rest of the game with 10 men.

Why arent you all pointing out that in the Barca game, Carvalho pulled the goalie in an obvious pre planned cheating ploy devised by the 'arrogant' one to allow Terry's soft header to float into the net. That was the biggest cheat of this years tournament. Get over it, you were incapable of overcoming a resilient Liverpool in 2 attempts.

6/12/2005 12:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It wasn't a goal as this proves (clip from Sky Sports technology) ;


Chelsea should have had a free kick as Baros high foot was dangerous play, and to top it all off, the throw in that led to the goal was incorrectly awarded to Liverpool when it was clearly a Liverpool player who put it out of play.

6/12/2005 12:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those saying Cudicini couldn't have come on had Cech been sent off clearly don't know the rules of the game.

Play WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN STOPPED for the sending off (which wouldn't have happened anyway due to Baros high foot) There's been many many times when a Keeper has walked and the substitute keeper comes on during that break in play to face the penalty. Why would this game have been any different? (Unless the ref wanted to cheat even more and deny Chelsea the opportunity to make the sub)

6/12/2005 12:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Now get over it.

6/12/2005 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Liverpool closer to relegation than the Champions. 37 Points Difference.


6/12/2005 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Liverpool closer to relegation than the Champions. 37 Points Difference.


6/12/2005 1:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chelsea Champions and double winners 2005??

Liverpool FC-done it before many times! Now European Champions 2005!!!

I rest MY case.

6/12/2005 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do the hyper arrogant chelsea fans realise that any goodwill they had at the begining of the season has totally disppeared over the course of this season. Pre season I was pleased that they would break the hold of Man U and Arse, but that support has long gone on the back of blatant gamesmanship and cheating .I believe that they are now the most disliked team in the Premiership and probably Europe, not because of their football but because of their overbearing pomposity and complete lack of humility after a fleeting aquaintance with success after 50 years! WOW, some history that is (not). They should look to Liverpool Football Club on how to deal with success, and ITS A FACT that they are the most successful Club in English Football (count the trophies) Chelsea are still minnows in comparison to LFC/Man U & Arse and they have a long long way to go to match anyone of these clubs. And in case you Chelski fans get to carried away, remember this: YOU CAN ONLY DREAM OF WHAT WE HAVE ACHIEVED!!!

6/12/2005 3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

give it a rest u lot.
as a life long chelsea fan i htought it was a goal and the keeper was lucky to stay on. given the senario a full team for the remaining 84 mins was fine by me as it made no difference. one goal would have done it.
its only a game and u should all remember that.
chelsea have done nothing that every other club has not done, the difference is that now everyone is running scared because they just cant compete financially with chelsea. we will enjoy it why it lasts and as all you students of football history know: nothing lasts forever

6/12/2005 3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact of whether or not it crossed the line is irrelevant. It wasn't a Liverpool throw in the first place in the build up to a goal. If that wasn't given incorrectly, then most of this debate wouldn't ever have happened.

6/12/2005 5:14 PM  
Blogger The Merry Whistleblower said...

I've raised the point about "what if someone stands in front of the camera in the post?" before, so I shan't bother to again.

There is one thing about the supporter's picture from supposedly right on the line I find interesting. You will note that, far from being in the perfect position, the assistant is in fact a good two yards off the line, and as someone who's been there, done that and got the bollocking, I can tell you that the only place you can make an accurate decision from is bang on the line. And he still let the goal be given despite being in the wrong position: naughty naughty. Shouldn't have done that.

Incidentally, (and it pains me to do this because he's a lot of a moron otherwise) Andy Gray makes the point about not being able to tell for sure during that cheat.wmv video, at about 1:50 in.

This is, of course, assuming that the fan's picture is real.

As to the question of the high foot: When Baros goes in with his foot, there is no opponent within a reasonable distance of him or the ball. At that moment (and that's the important one), when he had to make the decision about what to do, it was perfectly safe for him to go in with his foot high, because there was nobody he could have hit with it. Therefore, he is not playing dangerously: if anyone is it's the goalkeeper, for putting himself into a dangerous situation having seen that Baros' foot was high, under the same principle as a player who bends double to head a ball.

6/13/2005 9:40 PM  
Blogger Football Commentator said...

I remember your post about the ball.

Why hasnt it been done in tennis then, a much more distinct need?

They use optical system, and a player can get in front of it also.

6/17/2005 6:37 PM  
Blogger Football Commentator said...

Oops, I forgot to add...

A camera gives a record... an electronic device does not.

6/17/2005 6:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When will everyone stop going on about this decision. Facts speak for themselves - GOAL WAS GIVEN! Therefore its a goal!

If the referee says its a goal its a goal so everyone should just get on with it! End of

6/18/2005 1:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Borrow Money From People. Low Rates. No Banks. Earn 8-12%. Great Returns. No Banks.