Cech seems like an honest lad and he said he saved it, they were entitled to appeal the Liverpool players but not all of the ball was over, very close though
I agree it 'could' have being yes, and obviously i didn't mean my statement to be an attack on you, i just don't think you can give something unless you are 110% and that is what the ruling is, so the rules state giving the benefit of the doubt to the defence not the attack. Whether thats the right or wrong way round is up for debate, however this incident is due to the current rules, not the rules you or i may wish where in place. You could easily say by that ruling that Carroll was offside for the first goal as i have seen offsides given when they have being nowhere near offside previously. P.S I hate Liverpool can you tell?
The goal-line technology wouldn't be about using a ****ty video like this one, it'd be either a camera positioned perfectly on the goal line so there wouldn't ever be a debate or technology such as hawk-eye which also eliminates any doubt instantly.
Would like to point out hawk-eye does not rule out 'any doubt' it is the most accurate system that we have got, but i know that the powers that be in cricket (huge cricket fan), are starting to worry far more about it now than they previously where, and that there is certainly some bad press due out about hawk eye, probably couldn't come at a worse time for them.
Cricket is much harder though isn't it? It's about predicting the trajectory of the ball to decide LBWs and stuff. In football all we need it do is look across the line and tell the ref if it crosses. They've also talked about systems with a chip in the ball which sounds pretty failsafe but I'm not an expert! The camera system would be the easiest though, get a camera in the post which looks across the line totally straight and the 4th official can watch it whenever required, it'd give him something to do.
I always think the last suggestion just delays the game, and when does he do this? Do we stop the game mid flow to check? A chip in the ball is no doubt the best suggestion, and i agree we only need to tell if he goes over the line, which is a completely different technology to what hawk eye produce for cricket, it was just a hint that the company themselves Hawk Eye produce far from accurate at times technology, so lets not expect to much to soon as there are clear flaws no doubt in the technology, but its better than nothing.
please log in to view this image White line in relation to the ball, looks a goal to me still from this photo frame. The frame of the goal doesn't sit square with the white lines. From the white line immediately left of the ball, you can see grass, so that means the whole of the ball passed the whole of the line.
The goal frame does sit square to the lines, if it's not showing it in a photo it's because the camera isn't square to things. As a linesman, if you can't see the whole of the ball behind the frame of the goal you aren't supposed to give the goal.
You would have thought that the TV companies would figure out that putting a TV camera in line with the goal lines would be a huge benefit for them. They could sit and say how crap the officials were with the evidence playing on loop!
A Russian lino would have done though. Deffo no goal though. All the Ball clearly did not cross the line. Carling Cup winners Liverpool - FA Cup winners Chelsea - Premier League winners Manchetser ?. Nice spread of the trophies this season. So next seasons charity shield is again CHELSEA v. MANCHESTER ?
I think this rule is stupid. Fact is, more of the ball is in the goal than is out of the goal. For me, should have have stood. But I realise rules are rules, and there are many, many rules in football nowadays. It's like they make them up for fun, for the sake of it. If I was Liverpool, I'd be steaming about that. But I'm not, so I'm concentrating on where my Bank Holiday beverages are gonna come from instead...
From a camera 'on the line' the ball would be further in the net. The fact is it could have been given, we've seen efforts like this given, like Juan Mata for example in the previous leg v Spurs!
Will Chelsea get another decision like that in a big match? It wasn't a goal but these decisions might go against them in the champions league final. I thought the cup final was dull. Chelsea deserved it for actually having a go, Liverpool were just to cautious. Ramierez's goal was a poor finish and the keeper should have done better. Liverpool didn't wake up until after Drogba's goal. I was neutral all the way through but still enjoyed giving a sarcastic clap to the part time Liverpool fans in the pub, when Caroll thought he'd scored their second. Dalglish might be out on his arse now. Their owners didn't look very happy.
Not surprised when you consider the amount of money Dalglish has wasted on average players. Jordan Henderson looks hopelessly out of his depth, Downing looks dreadful. Compare him to the job Pardew has done at Newcastle, and frankly Pardew has worked miracles. Playing decent football too. Don't think many people expected Newcastle to be a top 4 contender, shows you can break into the top 4, without being daft, comparatively speaking. Newcastle from memory have spent only a fraction of the rest of the top half of the Premier league.
Suprised at how poor Liverpool were yesterday, except for Carroll the rest of team looked jaded. Can't see Kenny carrying on there, they may have won the Carling Cup but even that was won by the skin of their teeth. Been 30 points behind Man United in the league would have been unheard of from Liverpool 10 years ago.
The rule is as it is so that linesmen don't have to decide if it was 49% or 51% of the ball that had crossed the line. With the rule as it is they only award a goal if there's 'daylight' between the woodwork and the ball, which is much easier to determine than the 49/51 split despite the best efforts of the lino in the Bolton/QPR game.
Just to clear up a bit of confusion about goal line technology. What's suggested is hawkeye, as used in tennis and cricket. It doesn't involve cameras or chips in the ball. It involves a calculation of where the ball is liable to have gone. Tennis and cricket are much easier in this respect as there is a much clearer target line, but even then top players in both games feel that the technology is dubious to say the least. The given accuracy figures for tennis and cricket don't relate to getting it "right" compared to where the ball could be proven to be but where it was predicted by the equipment being tested. It has a built degree of uncertainty which means it wouldn't resolve the question the odd few times it crops up. Tests have been done at football and found it not up to the job. For what it's worth, I feel if investment is to be made in changing football other forms of cheating have a much bigger influence on the game than the odd few doubtful decisions that the officials get wrong for goals. Goal line technology is being pushed by TV companies, it'll add nothing but cost and remove much from the live experience.
I don't think the Lino can possible tell whether it's in or not, he's rarely anywhere near the byline and his job is hard enough looking for the offsides and all the fouls which managers expect them to see nowadays. The officials need help.
