Liverpool vs Chelsea, FA Cup Final, May 05, 17:15, Wembley Stadium

monkey9 · 06-05-2012 12:47am

I'm too disappointed to truly post my thoughts!!!

Kerrigooney · 06-05-2012 12:55am

Aquila wrote: »

Still buzzing:)

Congratulations,ye deserved it.

I`m a Liverpool fan for 30 years and that first half performance was shameful. Chelsea didn`t break a sweat in the first half and they didn`t even have to.

There`s way too much deadwood in that Liverpool team...it`s beyond a joke now.

Fair play to Andy Carroll,he showed the passion that`s needed at the club. He`s the only Liverpool player to come out of that game with any credit. And after all the abuse he`s taken? Over the last month or so he`s improved hugely. I wouldn`t give up on him yet.

LuckyLloyd · 06-05-2012 12:57am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But it isnt the same at all levels (I'm assumeing your using the slovak 2nd division as some sort of indicator of a crap level) . The further down you go you start losing the linesman for a start. Sure even the Champions league at the minute has the extra officials being the goal that the premier league doesnt have.

They are playing with balls worth a couple of hundred each (if you've ever played with the official match balls, they are different) at the top level. Everythign from havign 40,000+ crowds to professional nutritinists and pitches like snooker tables and lines that are actually straight and measured means theres a world of difference between the top and bottom levels of football. They are usings replays to recind red cards and the like. Another thing thats not available at lower levels.

The view that the LOI First Divison is the same as top flight football (and that sameness would be ruined by the introduction of goalline technology) is, how shall I put this delicately, utterly ****ing retarded. If you are against goalline technology for that reason then you are either stupid or ignorant or both, sorry.

Nemanja91 · 06-05-2012 12:59am

I loved seeing Di Matteo strolling over to the ESPN stand with the can of bud.

Professional Griefer · 06-05-2012 2:11am

Ix Deadmau5 wrote: »

But its great crack if ye win/are winning?:)

Money down on a Drogba any time and Chelsea win. Come on!!

Get in!!

:D

Johner · 06-05-2012 2:18am

Ix Deadmau5 wrote: »

Get in!! :D

Was 5/1 on William Hill.

What odds did you get?

Professional Griefer · 06-05-2012 2:42am

Johner wrote: »

Was 5/1 on William Hill. What odds did you get?

4/1 on PP.

Drogba always scores in Wembley so I said I'd go for him and a Chelsea win. Delighted.

CSF · 06-05-2012 3:51am

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But it isnt the same at all levels (I'm assumeing your using the slovak 2nd division as some sort of indicator of a crap level) . The further down you go you start losing the linesman for a start. Sure even the Champions league at the minute has the extra officials being the goal that the premier league doesnt have.

They are playing with balls worth a couple of hundred each (if you've ever played with the official match balls, they are different) at the top level. Everythign from havign 40,000+ crowds to professional nutritinists and pitches like snooker tables and lines that are actually straight and measured means theres a world of difference between the top and bottom levels of football. They are usings replays to recind red cards and the like. Another thing thats not available at lower levels.

The view that the LOI First Divison is the same as top flight football (and that sameness would be ruined by the introduction of goalline technology) is, how shall I put this delicately, utterly ****ing retarded. If you are against goalline technology for that reason then you are either stupid or ignorant or both, sorry.

Good point, well articulated. Never thought of it that way.

CSF · 06-05-2012 3:59am

Oh and as an aside (not really related to why I don't want it), how would goalline technology have helped anything? The ball was still in play, should the ref have stopped play while waiting to be informed of the correct outcome? What if the ref had played on, chelsea played a long ball through and had scored in the time it takes for the ref to make his fully informed decision.

The reason video technology is more suitable to rugby is because it is full of stops and starts by its very nature imo.

Xavi6 · 06-05-2012 4:45am

Just saw the result, happy days.

Well done Chelsea.

06-05-2012 10:33am

CSF wrote: »

Oh and as an aside (not really related to why I don't want it), how would goalline technology have helped anything? The ball was still in play, should the ref have stopped play while waiting to be informed of the correct outcome? What if the ref had played on, chelsea played a long ball through and had scored in the time it takes for the ref to make his fully informed decision.

The reason video technology is more suitable to rugby is because it is full of stops and starts by its very nature imo.

You haven't seen the numerous replies on this thread telling you that goal-line technology is instantaneous? Goal-line technology is not the same as video technology. The system connects directly to a device the referee has. Ball crosses the line, the ref gets notified instantly

Sgt Pepper 64 · 06-05-2012 11:06am

28064212 wrote: »

You haven't seen the numerous replies on this thread telling you that goal-line technology is instantaneous? Goal-line technology is not the same as video technology. The system connects directly to a device the referee has. Ball crosses the line, the ref gets notified instantly

How does that work then? Is there a device in the ball and how will that work if the whole of the ball has to cross the line?

There must be something in the ball

DDC1990 · 06-05-2012 11:27am

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

How does that work then? Is there a device in the ball and how will that work if the whole of the ball has to cross the line?

There must be something in the ball

As soon as the ball crosses the line, it beeps or whatever so that the referee knows its over the line.

Instant!

monkey9 · 06-05-2012 11:31am

Just read the last page. Can't bear to read the tread as i'm sure the usual suspects are all over it, but is there really a debate about the ball over the line or not? Because it clearly wasn't and the officials made the right call. They can't give it if they're not sure!!

thebison · 06-05-2012 12:03pm

Graham Large ‏ @graham_large
A group of Liverpool fans were ejected from Wembley for spitting on Chelsea fans in the lower tier. Disgusting behaviour. #LFC #CFC

As I said when a few Chelsea fans booed the minutes silence during the FA Cup Semi-Final - every club have idiotic fans.

Doesn't represent the majority.

LuckyLloyd · 06-05-2012 12:36pm

CSF wrote: »

Oh and as an aside (not really related to why I don't want it), how would goalline technology have helped anything? The ball was still in play, should the ref have stopped play while waiting to be informed of the correct outcome? What if the ref had played on, chelsea played a long ball through and had scored in the time it takes for the ref to make his fully informed decision.

The reason video technology is more suitable to rugby is because it is full of stops and starts by its very nature imo.

Wonderful, you've spent a few pages arguing against the introduction of something without understanding how it works. Good man.

Bobeagleburger · 06-05-2012 12:38pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Wonderful, you've spent a few pages arguing against the introduction of something without understanding how it works. Good man.

Was scratching my head reading those posts alright.

The_Kew_Tour · 06-05-2012 12:40pm

Not seen sky or anything, but was there anywhere that they showed the 3D version basically showing if ball did cross the line or not?

Sorry if way behind.

kitakyushu · 06-05-2012 12:44pm

Part of me thinks FIFA likes to keep technology out precisely because it causes so much controversy. Mistakes/non-mistakes like these are an increasingly unique selling point in sport and a great talking point. Overall they really help to generate interest in the game itself. I'm certain that football would be less popular with the general public if the decisions were called correctly 100% of the time.

Regarding goalline solutions, at a glance I like the football with the sensor the best. Provided it didn't effect the physics of the ball itself and was reasonably easy to implement I could see it being a winner over video methods.

Barr · 06-05-2012 12:45pm

Well done Chelsea - better team on the day. Win was fully deserved.

Saying that I was very impressed with Andy Carroll when he came on.

G.K. · 06-05-2012 12:48pm

kitakyushu wrote: »

Part of me thinks FIFA likes to keep technology out precisely because it causes so much controversy. Mistakes/non-mistakes like these are an increasingly unique selling point in sport and a great talking point. Overall they really help to generate interest in the game itself. I'm certain that football would be less popular with the general public if the decisions were called correctly 100% of the time.

Regarding goalline solutions, at a glance I like the football with the sensor the best. Provided it didn't effect the physics of the ball itself and was reasonably easy to implement I could see it being a winner over video methods.

Despite the fact that the second round of trials are taking place at the moment?

The_Kew_Tour · 06-05-2012 12:52pm

My best mate works for company who FIFA are trialing to get the technology in place.

He was only in Paris other day. Its only matter of time before it is in. Maybe not next season, but look like season after it will be implemented to some degree at very least.

G.K. · 06-05-2012 1:03pm

Hawkeye or Goalref?

The_Kew_Tour · 06-05-2012 1:06pm

G.K. wrote: »

Hawkeye or Goalref?

Hawkeye.

There couple of more too has far as I am aware.

He does not work for them directly, more a joined company and contract for short period, as its actually another company(the one he works for) thats helping hawkeye with all this

G.K. · 06-05-2012 1:10pm

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Hawkeye.

There couple of more too has far as I am aware.

He does not work for them directly, more a joined company and contract for short period, as its actually another company(the one he works for) thats helping hawkeye with all this

Hawkeye and Goalref are the only two still in trials.

The_Kew_Tour · 06-05-2012 1:15pm

G.K. wrote: »

Hawkeye and Goalref are the only two still in trials.

Ah OK. I might have mixed up the link up companys with that actual companies who will process all this.

FIFA will be making decision pretty soon though of that I do know as mate part time contract runs out within next couple of months as they(FIFA) it seems want decide this pretty quickly and get it up and running.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 06-05-2012 1:15pm

Hawkeye would be more fun for the spectators, especially if they reviewed on the big screen like in tennis

See 0:30 - 0:50 in this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQBqKN8FfL0

kitakyushu · 06-05-2012 1:18pm

G.K. wrote: »

Despite the fact that the second round of trials are taking place at the moment?

And how are the solutions for eliminating all the other types of refereeing mistakes from the game coming along?

DaNiEl1994 · 06-05-2012 1:24pm

fair play to chelsea well deserved better team won.

but just one thing i would like cleared up if anyone knows (hate to sound like im clutching at straws but) i was nearly sure the ball didnt have to cross the line fully i thought just more than half the ball had to cross the line fully like 51% if people know what i mean

Mars Bar · 06-05-2012 1:26pm

DaNiEl1994 wrote: »

fair play to chelsea well deserved better team won.

but just one thing i would like cleared up if anyone knows (hate to sound like im clutching at straws but) i was nearly sure the ball didnt have to cross the line fully i thought just more than half the ball had to cross the line fully like 51% if people know what i mean

I think that's only for the sidelines?

The_Kew_Tour · 06-05-2012 1:26pm

DaNiEl1994 wrote: »

fair play to chelsea well deserved better team won.

but just one thing i would like cleared up if anyone knows (hate to sound like im clutching at straws but) i was nearly sure the ball didnt have to cross the line fully i thought just more than half the ball had to cross the line fully like 51% if people know what i mean

No it has to be fully over the line mate.

DaNiEl1994 · 06-05-2012 1:28pm

fair enough lads, but even if goal-line technoligy was there and it said it wasnt a goal, we still need it in place as soon as possible

kitakyushu · 06-05-2012 1:32pm

DaNiEl1994 wrote: »

fair play to chelsea well deserved better team won.

but just one thing i would like cleared up if anyone knows (hate to sound like im clutching at straws but) i was nearly sure the ball didnt have to cross the line fully i thought just more than half the ball had to cross the line fully like 51% if people know what i mean

I got called up on this mistake yesterday. I was informed that it's definitely 'all the ball past all of the line'.

I think I was mixing it up with throw-ins whereby in that case the attacking team now actually benefits from the 'all ball all line' factor. (eg a winger barely keeping the ball in play) However in terms of scoring a goal the 'completeness factor' now works against the attacking team and they have to get every bit of the ball past the all of the white line.

DaNiEl1994 · 06-05-2012 1:34pm

right thanks for clearing it up

CSF · 06-05-2012 1:39pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Wonderful, you've spent a few pages arguing against the introduction of something without understanding how it works. Good man.

FFS, I'm pretty sure I've been clear that the reasons I'm opposed to it are nothing to do with the mechanics of it. I couldn't care less how it works.

But never mind, you carry on with your typical faux-intelligent condescending wankery.

DB21 · 06-05-2012 1:40pm

DaNiEl1994 wrote: »

fair play to chelsea well deserved better team won.

but just one thing i would like cleared up if anyone knows (hate to sound like im clutching at straws but) i was nearly sure the ball didnt have to cross the line fully i thought just more than half the ball had to cross the line fully like 51% if people know what i mean

Nope. All of the ball has to cross all of the line.

El Inho · 06-05-2012 1:45pm

Gutted. Think Gerrard said it best, that we just about did enough to get extra-time because of the last half hour. We made it easy for Chelsea and let them get two easy goals...and from what i can remember that was it for them chances wise.

Carroll was the game changer. Wanted him on at half time, and those few minutes cost us. Spearing was shocking, as was Enrique and a few others.

But when a team starts out the way we did, we deserved little more than extra time and hoping for luck. I don't know why there is such debate about Carroll's non0goal. It was close, but it wasnt a goal by any account.

Just looking forward to putting this year behind us.

redzerdrog · 06-05-2012 2:14pm

Anyone think carrolls recent form might get him a call up for the euros?

El Inho · 06-05-2012 2:15pm

redzerdrog wrote: »

Anyone think carrolls recent form might get him a call up for the euros?

very hard to know. I'd bring him for the simple reason that when things go wrong, you change the entire setup and hoof to carroll hoping for the best. great to have behind the glass of a break glass in case of emergency thingy! :P

kitakyushu · 06-05-2012 2:19pm

I think England should definitely bring Carroll if only to have a different option up front.

Carroll seems to be the best English target man atm (better than Crouch who never really was much good in that department anyway imho).

G.K. · 06-05-2012 2:30pm

I'd still take Holt if I was going to take a big man.

5starpool · 06-05-2012 2:33pm

redzerdrog wrote: »

Anyone think carrolls recent form might get him a call up for the euros?

Hopefully not. The less LFC players at it the better. Ditto for the olympics.

CSF · 06-05-2012 2:43pm

G.K. wrote: »

I'd still take Holt if I was going to take a big man.

For some reason was convinced Holt was Scottish, til I checked after your post.

Morzadec · 06-05-2012 3:40pm

5starpool wrote: »

Hopefully not. The less LFC players at it the better. Ditto for the olympics.

Agree in general but I think it'd be good for Carroll, a good learning experience, a confidence boost and he probably wouldn't play that many minutes. It's not like he's played too many this year either.

I'd like it if he got the call-up

Crann na Beatha · 06-05-2012 3:42pm

This post has been deleted.

Liverpool vs Chelsea, FA Cup Final, May 05, 17:15, Wembley Stadium

Comments