Champions League Final

[Summers]

No he didn't. He blew when he saw Lehmann break the rules of the game, on the edge of the box, in a clear-to-day goal scoring position. He blew at the right time, IMO.

[Liam]

No he didn't. He blew when he saw Lehmann break the rules of the game, on the edge of the box, in a clear-to-day goal scoring position. He blew at the right time, IMO.

Wanna explain the play-on rule for us then?

[Summers]

& we're saying he shouldn't have played on & that he made the right decision. That's all we're pointing out.

--

Not really, Liam, no I don't. The way I see it, from where he was, he saw no advantage, he saw clear as day the foul, he blew his whistle because he had no clue that was about to happen. It's not worth waiting around after every foul, to see what happens in the next couple of seconds.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Summers

[TMM]

It's not up to Barcá whether they get the goal, it's up to the reff.

Yeah, but the point was that they believed the ref should have played on.

Thats all we are pointing out...the ref should have played on.

Fuck...its not like the other option would have got Arsenal anymore out of trouble...they'd have been 1-0 down. If that change in decision would have affected Arsenal in a positive way, than fair enough, but it wouldn't have.

Simply put, we SHOULD'VE been 1-0 down. In the long run we would've been better off with 11 vs. 11 and 1-0 down, but that's irrelevent because it should've been 1-0, and Lehmann, at the very worse, should've been booked.

[Guest Kliq Masterson]

There is a play-on rule. Unfortunately, once the ref blows the whistle, it's over. Case in point, the Malaga/Sevilla game from early in the season had the Malaga goalkeeper fouling a Sevilla player, the ref blowing the whistle and then another Sevilla player scoring a goal. The ref chose to disregard the fact that he had blown the whistle and let the goal stand and didn't send off the goalkeeper. Malaga appealed and the Spanish FA actually compensated them in some way and even fined the referee.

Again, there's no right and wrong. Either he blows and sends off or he let's the play go and the goal stand with no sending off. They're both perfectly fine.

[Summers]

It's not up to Barcá whether they get the goal, it's up to the reff.

Yeah, but the point was that they believed the ref should have played on.

Thats all we are pointing out...the ref should have played on.

Fuck...its not like the other option would have got Arsenal anymore out of trouble...they'd have been 1-0 down. If that change in decision would have affected Arsenal in a positive way, than fair enough, but it wouldn't have.

Simply put, we SHOULD'VE been 1-0 down. In the long run we would've been better off with 11 vs. 11 and 1-0 down, but that's irrelevent because it should've been 1-0, and Lehmann, at the very worse, should've been booked.

You SHOULD'VE had him sent off. Get over it.

[Guest Heresy]

Eto'o wasn't offside, his two feet were clearly on. He was leaning forward already.

[Liam]

There is a play-on rule. Unfortunately, once the ref blows the whistle, it's over. Case in point, the Malaga/Sevilla game from early in the season had the Malaga goalkeeper fouling a Sevilla player, the ref blowing the whistle and then another Sevilla player scoring a goal. The ref chose to disregard the fact that he had blown the whistle and let the goal stand and didn't send off the goalkeeper. Malaga appealed and the Spanish FA actually compensated them in some way and even fined the referee.

Again, there's no right and wrong. Either he blows and sends off or he let's the play go and the goal stand with no sending off. They're both perfectly fine.

Yeah, it is a null argument, but the point is that it seems that he should have played on, as the foul didn't end up affecting thier possesion of the ball. There was no real reason not to. If the challenge had been in the penalty area, then I'd have seen it, as it would have been a sending off and a direct chance to score. But it was a free kick at best, and just seemed harsh as much to Barcelona as anything.

[Summers]

Shh Heresy, the gooner's are making excuses. Just listen & laugh.

[LexChaney]

It's not up to Barcá whether they get the goal, it's up to the reff.

Yes it is, and the referee made the wrong decision by blowing so early.

[TMM]

The main point I (and I think HGwannabe) is trying to make is that the referee shouldn't have have blown so early. Yes, either one of sending Lehmann off and giving the free-kick or playing on and giving the goal were right, the problem is that the referee didn't give the advantage, which they clearly had with a player through on goal. Whether the referee SAW him or not is irrelevent, let the ball go and if there's nobody there, an Arsenal player gets it or the Barca player misses, fine, pull the game back and send him off.

Edited May 17, 2006 by TMM

[Summers]

Would you like to say the exact same thing some more? I'm not nearly bored enough yet.

The main point I (and Dan) are making is that we feel he SHOULD have blew when he did. They didn't 'clearly' have an advantage, they ended up with one, true, but if the referee didn't see it, he was perfectly right to blow his whistle if he didn't think anything would come of it.

[TMM]

We shall have to agree to disagree then, because noe of of us is gonna budge on our points.

[Liam]

Would you like to say the exact same thing some more? I'm not nearly bored enough yet.

The main point I (and Dan) are making is that we feel he SHOULD have blew when he did. They didn't 'clearly' have an advantage, they ended up with one, true, but if the referee didn't see it, he was perfectly right to blow his whistle if he didn't think anything would come of it.

They didn't clearly have an advantage when the only man within ten feet of the ball was a Barca player? And the goal was open?

Seriously, I can see both sides points in this, but the ref was poor as a whole.

The fact that he probably should have given Barca the goal tops that.

[R.W.]

TMM, you do know about the amendment to the play-on rules now I take it? If a player commits a professional foul, and the referee allows play on from which the opponents score, he can still go back and send off the player who committed the professional foul.

The ref would have been well within his rights to allow the goal and send Lehmann off.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story eh? Last week it was Spurs claiming they'd been robbed, and the rest of the country laughing at them, and now it's Arsenal's turn it seems.

Fact is, without a "dodgy" ref, Arsenal wouldn't have scored and would have lost anyway.

Edited May 17, 2006 by Rabid Wolverine

[Liam]

TMM, you do know about the amendment to the play-on rules now I take it? If a player commits a professional foul, and the referee allows play on from which the opponents score, he can still go back and send off the player who committed the professional foul.

Fair enough, by that rule he should have let the goal and sent him off. But he didn't.

[TMM]

TMM, you do know about the amendment to the play-on rules now I take it? If a player commits a professional foul, and the referee allows play on from which the opponents score, he can still go back and send off the player who committed the professional foul.

The ref would have been well within his rights to allow the goal and send Lehmann off.

But why let the facts get in the way of a good story eh? Last week it was Spurs claiming they'd been robbed, and the rest of the country laughing at them, and now it's Arsenal's turn it seems.

Fact is, without a "dodgy" ref, Arsenal wouldn't have scored and would have lost anyway.

Pfft...we would've won! Won I tell thee!!! Won!!!

[Dan]

With your imaginary goal?

[Guest Kliq Masterson]

Is it wrong that I felt immense pleasure at seeing Pires and Eboue unhappy at their defeat?

IS IT?

[TMM]

With your imaginary goal?

With our secret weapon...half-time lasagne...¬_¬