Forget possession, chances, crosses, loudest fans and most attractive cheerleaders. England scored. Ukraine didn't. 1-0. done. Every single news report Ive read has stated that the win was 'controversial' and that 'england conceded a goal but it wasnt given.' I literally dont understand how something can be described as lucky when a ball is put over a line in a move where an attacker is CLEARLY offside!! Lazy, lazy journalism! By all accounts if Terry wasnt there and the ball had hit the net England could justifiably be described as being unlucky! If they were offside (which they were) the goal shouldnt have happened anyway.... so infuriating! On a side note, englands players need to learn how to keep hold of a ball when holding a lead... a better team would have punished them today...
feck me . the goal that never was , was the most exciting 30 seconds of the whole game. Lazy hacks gotta make a story out of something. The non goal was it .
the goal would have stood if it had hit the net,even if it was offside, because the linesman didn't flag for offside.
But he was still offside so regardless, it wasn't a goal. They can't seriously complain that they were robbed a goal when it should have been offside to start with, and if they were awarded with the goal, it may have been us ranting about it.
and the goal wasnt given. potaeto potaato. A goal wasnt given so it wasnt a goal. A goal shouldnt have been given cos he was offside. Either way - no controversy. Right decision, wrong reason.
Well said, we proved against Sweden we have the character to come back at teams anyway. I must admit I haven't read much about the game this morning but i'm surprised the media have taken this angle - they've been generally positive about Woy's England.
Perhaps because we won our last two groups games with goals from two awful pieces of goalkeeping by the opposition? I haven't read any papers today but the media were never going to give 'Woy' an easy ride because they wanted and still want 'Arry as England manager.
Open to debate but not the point I was making Yid - Every article/report I have read/heard has referred to the goal that never was as a 'perfectly good goal' and 'a lucky break.' This clearly isnt the case as in the same move they are referring to a clear and indesutable offside was not given. I can understand Ukraine fans and media (who must have ben frustrated having watched a very good perfomance by their team who arguably deserved to win the game overall) skating completely over that minor incident changing detail, but find it quite perplexing that it is totally ignored by large sections of the british media. Agreed though - england have to perform better in the quarters, particularly when it comes to keeping hold of the ball in the latter stages. They looked like they were terrified of havig it for more than 20 seconds for pretty much the entire game...
England were fairly lucky that the woeful Rooney managed to put a ball 2 feet into an open net, honestly, comparing this guy to Pele is like comparing dirty bath water that someone pissed in to Dom Perignon
I was in the pub and didn't see anything about an offside at the time but fairplay if it was, I get your point. I just mentioned the goals to give it another angle on how we'd be considered lucky. I really don't care if we're considered lucky though, we won the group and that made me very happy, although that might be partly down to the beers too
No and I agree with you there ultimately it doesnt matter, and it would appear luck has shone down on us in regards to chance conersions etc. A few of England's goals have been rather obscure to say the least! I guess there is a part of me that is bored to death of the goalline technology debate and see this incident as a lazy, tired attempt to drag it up again in a way that discredit's England's victory. Everybody knows there should be technology. But everybody should also know that the real controversy yesterday would have been if the goal had been given, as it shuold never have been allowed to get that far in the first place.
Justice was done, much as I hate that phrase, as the ball shouldn't have got anywhere near our goal due to the fact Milevskiy was clearly offside in the build up.
I guess they need to sell they're stories but your right there was nothing contraversial about it. If you say the goal was over the line and counted then you must also say it was offside and should not have counted. It was an awesome save and an exciting part of the game. England won 1-0 fair and square. They weren't very good in the first half though. Will need to play better on Sunday. Hopefully Rooneys got rid of some rust now.
The papers + press can't seem to just accept it is an average team. Not a bad team, nor a great one. Atm we are swinging from potential Euro Champions riding the feel good factor across Eastern Europe to no-hopers who can't hold possession and rely on luck.
A point missed is that, should the "goal" have been allowed, the score would have been 1-1 and England still win the group. Should the equalizer have inspired the Ukrane to go on and win 2-1 (a big "if") England would have come second in the group and gone through. There was also a blatant elbow in the back on Andy Carroll, in the penalty area, which was missed. Hey-ho! As has been mentioned, this incident was no way as clear cut as Lampard's. Yes the ball clearly crossed the line, when studied in slow-mo/ freeze frame, but it stayed in the air and was about a foot over the line. Lampard's was about a yard over and BOUNCED inside the goal- (it was also a legitimate goal, as in the build up; this one wasn't) Lazy journalists will always seek to equate one incident with another, but there's no comparison, other than extremely superficially. Still, got to find something negative to write, eh?
Forgive me for being pedantic, but it wasnt anything like a foot over the line. Remember, the whole of the ball has to be clear of the whole of the line. This undoubtedly was, but it was considerably more marginal than the sensationalist tabloid media would have anybody believe. Totally agree with your overall sentiment, the comparison between this and Lampard's is totally ridiculous for the reasons you have already described. I would be interested to hear the media/uefa's answer to this question: Had Lampard controlled the ball with his hand against Germany then had his goal disallowed, would they have considered it a travesty against england or would they all have said the right prevailed in the end? We all know the answer, and that is why the english have a bit of a chip on our shoulders when it comes to blatter and platini.
Not to mention bung scandals / voting scandals / their reaction to racism and homosexual issues..... Why don't I just say FIFA is one big scandal.
