Someone at Channel 5 having a bit of fun with their schedule tonight. Being Liverpool followed by Frontline Police and a double dose of The Mentalist.
It would have been nice if they could have finished the night off with a compendium of clips from Tom O'Connor's stand-up appearances at the London Palladium, in the 80s.
Pretty much every fan, pundit and commentator across the country would disagree with you if you seriously thought that wasn't a goal. Coates was leaning, yes - but a foul was not given. The offside call was blatantly wrong, caused by an incompetent official bottling it. Even Gary Neville felt sorry for us. In fact I'm quite sure Moyes accepted post match that it was a goal. Oh, and HIAG, can you point out when Suarez dived today? I'm surprised that's what you went for, seeing as the worst thing he did today was make a very poor challenge on Distin. In fact, the only player to be booked for simulation was... Phil Neville. And the worst simulator on the pitch today was... Kevin Miralles. But please, continue in your wilful ignorance, it's like reading a more immediate version of The Mirror or some other dross.
So you think that the goal should've been chalked off for a foul and that the scorer should've been dismissed, yet the goal should've stood? Strange argument, Rev...
Not if you follow the events. I think Suarez deserved his yellow, certainly. I was pointing out that HIAG would rather invent allegations of diving rather than actually talk about the game (did he watch the game I wonder). IF the referee had considered Coates' winning of the ball to be illegal (which is 50/50, freekick scrambles are very discretionary) he would have given a freekick. He didn't. The goal was ruled out for offside by the linesman. It was blatantly onside. Therefore, the goal should have stood.
I tend to agree with this, two wrongs don't make a right. The biggest and most preventable mistake was the offside and the lino should be held to account for a terrible call and that makes Liverpool unfortunate to me. It's a bit like the goal Scotland got against Wales that was ruled out, yes there was a marginal offside call that went for them but you expect them to go eitherway and everyone accepts that but the error in calling the cross out of bounds you'd expect every lino to get right so you can feel aggreived.
The galling thing was that it shouldn't have even been a contentious decision. I mean he was very clearly on.
That's what I was saying. You don't need to tell us about contentious offside calls though, Adebayor's offside apparently! please log in to view this image
You know their idiots that have an irrational hatred of all things Liverpool so even though they KNOW Suarez's goal should of stood their going to come up with some fantasy bollocks that says it was right that it didn't so why bother replying to them mate? Waste of time and effort. Just put the overly biased on ignore and have genuine debate and convrsation with those who show some semblance of objectivity and open mindedness. Like Yid Vicious. Thats what I do and I have yet to ever read more than one post of deluded drivel from HIAG.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Lineo got the offside decision right? Coz as has already been proven the goal was ruled out officially for offside. Nobody with a brain would say that offside decision was right.
This is the guy forced off at half time due to a nasty horrible stamp that should have produced a red card? Just want to make sure I have the right one. And Suarez's challenge on Distin was a nailed on red card. He shouldn't have been there to have a disallowed goal.
That's even worse Ok then... - Miralles wasn't stamped on, but he was caught quite late in a tackle that could have warranted a yellow. - However, two wrongs don't make a right - he was falling, gesticulating etc before and after the incident. - By your logic, Suarez's dive against Stoke doesn't count because Huth stamped on him, and the Stoke side took it in turns to kick the ****e out of him. But you wouldn't say that, would you? - The Distin tackle (which is completely irrelevant to a discussion of the offside decision) was very poor. A deserved yellow or perhaps a red card. It's in the 'orange' territory - hard to tell what sort of intent or purpose their was either. - It was a goal. End of.
It's relevance is that he shouldn't have been on the pitch. No more no less. The actual disallowed goal was unfair, I agree with that.
One benefit of Suarez's antics (kicking Mirallas off the pitch, asking for Moyes to lamp him, trying to break Distin's ankle) is it distracts attention from what a nasty little player Raheem Stirling is. If he wasn't going to ground every bit as readily as Suarez does, he was aiming remarkably reckless challenges at various Everton players.
I think there is a "reap what you sow" attitude among refs, when it comes to making decisions for 'Pool. What I mean by that is, 'Pool's players have dived so often and committed so many violent fouls that refs simply don't want to risk giving anything in 'Pool's favour and be proven to have been made to look like right mugs. Better to give 'Pool nothing, ever, because it's more likely than not that that will prove to be the right decision. Even the Mousers must see the logic in that?
I don't get why people are ignoring the climbing by Coates. The goal may not have been disallowed for the right reason, but it probably should've been disallowed. Wrong decision, but correct outcome.
It's a moot point. Complete hyperbole. Arguably true, but again a moot point. It was a goal in all but the view of the linesman.
Why are they moot points, Rev? If he shouldn't have been on the pitch or Coates should've been penalised for climbing, then how can you claim that the goal should've stood?
