you won..well done. but you cant tell me that instead of it being 2-0 to your team it could and should have been 1-1......have you ever played football? at any level worthy of competition? if you have then you will know that the impetus,drive,hope and confidence is lost almost totally when you go down to 2-0.......compared to when you have just equalised to pull the game back to 1-1. dont tell me the fuk up by the referee did not influence the outcome of the game
like a guy on the Sutton forum said the goal that was'nt changed the whole dynamics of the game,so i don't know how Chelsea fans claim it did'nt make a difference,Harry said the ref has said sorry to him,big deal,i'm fed up with the officials fu**ing up teams season's with wrong decisions,two of them as Cech should have gone to
Of course it affected the game. It left us chasing after a game that were slowly getting the upper hand in. You won due to two wonder strikes, an appalling refereeing decision, and some very poor defending by us whilst we were chasing the game. The wrongly allowed second goal changed the whole mindset of the game. Not exactly the first time it's happened against your lot, either!!
How is it an overreaction? If he's not completely sure, he shouldn't give it. There's no way he could have been completely sure, so that means he guessed. Not exactly first class officiating, is it?
Don't be even more ridiculous than you usually are! Of course it wan't a goal. Even Atkinson himself has now admitted such. Only a one- eyed Gooner could possibly interpret that as a legitimate goal.
I know you are hurting from it, but that picture suggests that the ball is over the line. I still don't think the ref should give it if he's not 100% sure, but it looks as though it was in. It's a moot point though really, as you were totally torn apart by Chelsea anyway.
Chelsea deserved the win, but we'll never know how much that goal affected the outcome. If we'd got to 1-1 would Defoe have come on, probably not and we'd have stayed compact in midfield. Just give up on the "that picture suggests that the ball is over the line", you are making an idiot of yourself. Even the ref knows it wasn't in.
FIFA Laws of the Game, Rule 10 A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar, provided that no infringement of the Laws of the Game has been committed previously by the team scoring the goal. The ball was not fully across the line, so it was not a goal - so you cannot say that Atkinson being called incompetent/a moron/a moonlighting rugby referee/somebody in desperate need of a urine test is an overreaction, as he acted in direct contravention to the Laws of the Game.
As I have already said, it's only debatable by a one-eyed Gooner. Whatever picture you look at the whole of the ball was not over the whole of the line. As for being torn apart, absolute rubbish! Now way did the scoreline reflect the game as a whole. Yes, we defended badly, especially when we were forced to take chances by that idiot Atkinson. As others have also said, we will never know how badly that decision affected the outcome, but it certainly changed a game we were getting the upper hand in.
Just think, the English representatives at the Euros will include Howard Webb and Martin Atkinson. Expect the rest of Europe to speculate that the Premier League selects their officials based on how many tokens they got from packets of Coco Pops...
Piskie, I said you are making an idiot of yourself, not that you are an idiot (subtle difference I know) but given the ref and John Terry accept what the ITV cameras clearly show - no goal, I don't see why you think it is debatable. It is as poor as Lampard's non goal against Germany, not even close. However, Chelsea were the better team and we defended poorly for the last 15 minutes, so I have no hard feelings for Chelsea. They won deservedly. If the goal was not given I suspect we'd have come out with a less embarrassing defeat, not a victory.
How do you know you would've scored your goal if it was disallowed? It 'changed the whole dynamic of the game' right?
How do you know you would've scored your goal if it was disallowed? It 'changed the whole dynamic of the game' right? --------- That's right Drogs, and your point is.... However, we could say that we had looked the "team most likely to" in a poor match up to that point. Let's face it your first goal came out of nothing other than a supreme bit of skill... no problem with that, but it doesn't alter the balance of play and the fact we beat the keeper a couple of times, and when that happens one or more of them will go in! The fact is the goal completely changed the match and speculating on anything that happened after is, well.... speculative... at best.
Fair enough, I disagree though. I thought we were evenly matched up untill we scored in the first half, 2nd half we created that chance that led to the 2nd goal but that was it. We both had strong chances in the first half, us with Drogba's miss-kick and Mata's 1v1 and you with Adebayor hitting the post etc. The goal did change the match, but it didn't affect who deserved to win is what I'm saying. You scored straight away, you can't blame conceding three goals on poor refereeing.
As I've said, we will never know how badly that changed the game. We were pushing for an equaliser when that happened. At 1-1 it could have been different. In a way, also, our goal cost us. If Bale hadn't have put it in the net, Cech would have had to go, and you would have been down to 10!
Yes I understand that but to blame a 5-1 mauling on a goal that shouldn't have been is ridiculous for me. If one bad decision affects you lot that badly it's not our fault. Yes Cech probably should've gone, but even the commentator was saying you were right to take the goal. Imagine if you'd missed the pen?
