they froze the replay and the ball was half over at most!, cant believe andy townsend is still rattling on about it.. should be talking about a world class save
As long as I've got a hole in my arse that wasn't a goal. Glad it wasn't given for that reason plus the fact Suarez is a **** and as per usual he started crying like a baby to the lino. ****'em and **** him.
I thought it was definitely over in real time, but on the replay the whole ball didn't look to cross the line, so well done lino.
same here, would have been easy for the linesman to get caught in the heat of the moment and just give the goal;....
Way more than half, having frozen it, it's still not conclusive. Not until we get hawk eye or something equivalent see the correct decisions made.
You can't say that, he cost £35m so he's ****. I'm not gonna defend Lampard again because everyone knows my position on our best midfielder, but what has happened to Gerrard? I know he's not peak age any more but I've hardly noticed him in about 2 years. Also, NFU's right, Suarez is a ****.
i thought lampard was quality, plays a different role sometimes these days sitting a bit deeper, hardly gave it away again, and cracking dummy and pass for drogbas goal..
More than both halves, even commentators aren't 100% having had the benefit of freeze frame replays. Could have been given as easily as it wasn't.
What the hell is the point of stating that? Any close decision can easily be given and can easily be not given. The point here is that you said it should have been given as a goal after the video replay showed it difinitely didn't cross the line.
Have a break hey, you'll wear out your brain cell. I've said it's inconclusive, that's my opinion. As the angle of the camera is ****, the goal isn't square with the goal line blah blah blah. There's way more than half the ball that crosses the line as pundits are still debating it. If it was that clear cut it wouldn't still be being debated. We've seen goals that have been clear goals not given, we've seen nearly goals given and not given, and goals given for shots that don't go anywhere near the goal given as a goal. That's football, deal with it. I still think it should have been given, as ref's and lino's don't have goal line technology, my opinion remains the same. It is just as valid as yours, so don't start behaving like a **** because you don't like it.
Benefit of the doubt surely goes to the defensive team? Unless you can 110% state the ball went over how can you give it? You can't, not one person can definately say the ball went over so therefore it can't be given, how is it even possibly to debate the laws of the game? It wasn't over anyway.
Goals have previously been awarded for shots that haven't even been near the goal, as this was on target and over the line, whether it was full ball or not. It 'could' have been awarded. The referee and the linesman do not have TV replays, so yes it could have, should it have been given? In my opinion yes, favour the attacking team. Swings and roundabouts. Thanks for joining in
So for all those in favour of a video official deciding, how long do we view that before they make a decision? I dont think it was a goal but I can guarantee others will and you could argue it all night.
