Comments on: Bad refereeing earns Liverpool a point against Sheffield United http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/ Football News Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:36:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Rahul http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2842 Rahul Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:30:11 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2842 It wasn't a penalty but Gerrard didnt dive.It was the mistake on the ref's part. It wasn’t a penalty but Gerrard didnt dive.It was the mistake on the ref’s part.

]]> By: Gregorgrease http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2342 Gregorgrease Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:31:18 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2342 the only thing undefendable was the pass to Gerrard in the box. hence the reason for such a tackle. the only thing undefendable was the pass to Gerrard in the box. hence the reason for such a tackle.

]]> By: Soupdragon2 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2339 Soupdragon2 Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:19:16 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2339 yes i know this is football. Football is full of liars and cheats. I tried to point that out and 20 people defend the undefendable. yes i know this is football.

Football is full of liars and cheats. I tried to point that out and 20 people defend the undefendable.

]]> By: Soupdragon2 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2338 Soupdragon2 Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:17:35 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2338 Gregorgrease.. If every time a player ran quickly they got a foul, the ball would never be in play. There was no contact, no intention to hit Gerrard as you admitted, and therefore... no fucking penalty. That is it. Gregorgrease.. If every time a player ran quickly they got a foul, the ball would never be in play.

There was no contact, no intention to hit Gerrard as you admitted, and therefore… no fucking penalty. That is it.

]]> By: DrinkSoup http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2303 DrinkSoup Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:37:04 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2303 hei Soupdragon2, this is football.. hei Soupdragon2, this is football..

]]> By: Gregorgrease http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2271 Gregorgrease Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:24:04 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2271 I don't think I have ever been exposed to a more ludicrously biased bunch of blind people in my life. There is even a clip provided for those of us who are blessed with the gift of sight. We firstly discuss the backward logic of the ref having made the wrong decision because if it had have been a fowl the player should have been sent off. Absolutely grotesque use of mental faculties this is. We then discuss the notion of intent as though every fowl ever given has been defined as a deliberate attemppt to take the player and not the ball. If there is no contact there has to be intent and if there is no intent then there is no fowl. Rational thought at its best...Some of the most significant sending offs in history started out with the purest of intentions but didn't quite turn out to be the purest realisation of these intentions. What the ref did in this instance was to use the personal fredom they are alloted in the game of football to judge an action unfair in the context of the free flow of a football game. Steven Gerrard was through on goal, the last defender was beaten. A reckless tackle came in from this last defender who, i'm sure, on initiating the tackle had no intention of bringing Gerrard down, the suggestion of which somewhat stretches the imagination; what player in the world intends to give away a penalty? As a result of Gerrard's speed and footballing ability, the object of the defender's intention, ie the ball, was no longer in the area it was when the tackle was initiated. However the tackle still continued. Gerrard made a perfectly valid attempt to continue on and score the goal, his main intention in being in the box in the first place. He was unable to do this, he was impeded by the mistimed lunge of a player reckless enough to slide in with what was very almost a two footed challenge in a last ditch attempt to save what was almost certainly going to be a goal. Have any of you seen Gerrard strike a ball before or was that the first game of football you listened to ( hardly watched due to mass blindness ) ???. Thousands of fowls have been given over the years in football when the ref judges the direct consequences of a players action to be not in keeping with the spirit of the game, ie impeding in an unfair manner the progress of a player towards the opposition goal. Do we need full contact ? No. Did Gerrard make every attempt to avoid the tackle? Yes, wouldn't you ?. Do we need intention and what constitutes intention ? Maybe if we found a note in the united changing room stating 'I intend to bring Gerrard down in the box today,' dated 19th August 2006, maybe this would satisfy the cynics amongst you. One genius referenced the European Cup Final, the greatest sporting spectacle any of you have ever had the grace from God of witnessing and are ever likely to witness, oh sorry, hear, as a supporting incident when Gerrard had hands all over him on his way into the box. Absolutely ludicrous Man United speak, nothing else. If ti wasn't Gerrard nothing else would have been said. The bottom line is this; Steven Gerrard played a penetrating one two that completely left the United defence for dead. On witnessing this the last man made a ridiculous attempt to get the ball, which wasn't there. As a consequence of this challenge Gerrard's run on goal was hindered to the extent that he was unable to finish with a strong enough strike to beat the keeper. The ref judged this challenge unfair, remember the rules are there to be interpreted and applied by the ref to the best of their ability, and in judging this challenge unfair and realising that there was no advantage to be gained, went on to award a penalty. Stevie should be reverred for not going over straight away and attempting to play on, not comprehensively slated. I agree that Styles has serious limitations on his ability but in this instance of awarding the penalty he was absolutely spot on. What is reprehensible is that the last defender stayed on the pitch. Even in his finest moment his decision is steeped in incompetence. It was a clear penalty and if you can't see this please reevaluate your understanding of the game. If that doesn't work you could always try speeding down the road at 100 miles per hour and you can get even more penalties you can argue weren't justified. I don’t think I have ever been exposed to a more ludicrously biased bunch of blind people in my life. There is even a clip provided for those of us who are blessed with the gift of sight.
We firstly discuss the backward logic of the ref having made the wrong decision because if it had have been a fowl the player should have been sent off. Absolutely grotesque use of mental faculties this is. We then discuss the notion of intent as though every fowl ever given has been defined as a deliberate attemppt to take the player and not the ball. If there is no contact there has to be intent and if there is no intent then there is no fowl. Rational thought at its best…Some of the most significant sending offs in history started out with the purest of intentions but didn’t quite turn out to be the purest realisation of these intentions.
What the ref did in this instance was to use the personal fredom they are alloted in the game of football to judge an action unfair in the context of the free flow of a football game.
Steven Gerrard was through on goal, the last defender was beaten. A reckless tackle came in from this last defender who, i’m sure, on initiating the tackle had no intention of bringing Gerrard down, the suggestion of which somewhat stretches the imagination; what player in the world intends to give away a penalty? As a result of Gerrard’s speed and footballing ability, the object of the defender’s intention, ie the ball, was no longer in the area it was when the tackle was initiated. However the tackle still continued. Gerrard made a perfectly valid attempt to continue on and score the goal, his main intention in being in the box in the first place. He was unable to do this, he was impeded by the mistimed lunge of a player reckless enough to slide in with what was very almost a two footed challenge in a last ditch attempt to save what was almost certainly going to be a goal. Have any of you seen Gerrard strike a ball before or was that the first game of football you listened to ( hardly watched due to mass blindness ) ???.
Thousands of fowls have been given over the years in football when the ref judges the direct consequences of a players action to be not in keeping with the spirit of the game, ie impeding in an unfair manner the progress of a player towards the opposition goal. Do we need full contact ? No. Did Gerrard make every attempt to avoid the tackle? Yes, wouldn’t you ?. Do we need intention and what constitutes intention ? Maybe if we found a note in the united changing room stating ‘I intend to bring Gerrard down in the box today,’ dated 19th August 2006, maybe this would satisfy the cynics amongst you.
One genius referenced the European Cup Final, the greatest sporting spectacle any of you have ever had the grace from God of witnessing and are ever likely to witness, oh sorry, hear, as a supporting incident when Gerrard had hands all over him on his way into the box. Absolutely ludicrous Man United speak, nothing else.
If ti wasn’t Gerrard nothing else would have been said. The bottom line is this; Steven Gerrard played a penetrating one two that completely left the United defence for dead. On witnessing this the last man made a ridiculous attempt to get the ball, which wasn’t there. As a consequence of this challenge Gerrard’s run on goal was hindered to the extent that he was unable to finish with a strong enough strike to beat the keeper. The ref judged this challenge unfair, remember the rules are there to be interpreted and applied by the ref to the best of their ability, and in judging this challenge unfair and realising that there was no advantage to be gained, went on to award a penalty. Stevie should be reverred for not going over straight away and attempting to play on, not comprehensively slated.
I agree that Styles has serious limitations on his ability but in this instance of awarding the penalty he was absolutely spot on. What is reprehensible is that the last defender stayed on the pitch. Even in his finest moment his decision is steeped in incompetence. It was a clear penalty and if you can’t see this please reevaluate your understanding of the game. If that doesn’t work you could always try speeding down the road at 100 miles per hour and you can get even more penalties you can argue weren’t justified.

]]> By: Soupdragon2 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2243 Soupdragon2 Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:44:57 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2243 I agree with every comment you made good sir. The most pertinent point you made was the fact that a penalty of that nature has NEVER, EVER been given before. So, reason 1. "He hit him." (If he thought he hit Gerrard and he then explained that HIS INTENTION TO HIT GERRARD was enough, why was no red card shown?) reason 2. "Oh, really? Looked like he did, intention is enough." (So, he thought there was contact and didn't card him, then when he is told he DIDNT SEE the contact, says that he saw the intent to take Gerrard down.) Why did he IMMEDIATELY run to the penalty spot not issuing a card if he hadn't seen the lack of contact and half witnessed what he thought was INTENT to take Gerrard down. Justifying all of this is impossible, and his attempt to justify the validity of the penalty by saying "HERES A NEW TAKE ON THE RULE THAT'S NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE, EVEN THOUGH MY ORIGINAL REASON FOR GIVING THE PENALTY HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG" shows that he has an inclination to defend Liverpool, as if him spotting the phantom contact when everyone else saw he dived wasn't enough. I agree with every comment you made good sir.

The most pertinent point you made was the fact that a penalty of that nature has NEVER, EVER been given before.

So, reason 1. “He hit him.” (If he thought he hit Gerrard and he then explained that HIS INTENTION TO HIT GERRARD was enough, why was no red card shown?)
reason 2. “Oh, really? Looked like he did, intention is enough.” (So, he thought there was contact and didn’t card him, then when he is told he DIDNT SEE the contact, says that he saw the intent to take Gerrard down.)

Why did he IMMEDIATELY run to the penalty spot not issuing a card if he hadn’t seen the lack of contact and half witnessed what he thought was INTENT to take Gerrard down.

Justifying all of this is impossible, and his attempt to justify the validity of the penalty by saying “HERES A NEW TAKE ON THE RULE THAT’S NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE, EVEN THOUGH MY ORIGINAL REASON FOR GIVING THE PENALTY HAS BEEN PROVEN WRONG” shows that he has an inclination to defend Liverpool, as if him spotting the phantom contact when everyone else saw he dived wasn’t enough.

]]> By: David Arnold http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2200 David Arnold Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:41:11 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2200 Thanks for letting us all know about rule 12. We have all changed our minds and now admit that rather than being incompetent Styles is actually a hero for giving the first ever penalty for this reason. Seriously, how can you suggest that "the sheffield united player" attempted to trip "Stevie" rather than win the ball which at the point of the tackle was there to be won. The simple fact is the referee saw contact that wasn't there, gave a penalty without even thinking of consulting his linesman having sprinted to stand on the penalty spot. He had the conviction of thought to give the penalty but then decided he wasn't too sure after all so he didn't take any further action when in fact had it been a foul it should have been a straight red. Following this he does an interview on sky saying that there was contact, decides then maybe there wasn't so on a later interview with MOTD he decides to change his story to "intent to trip" without any further explanation behind the change of tact or what psychic powers he used to decide Morgan's intent in that split second where he was forced to slide in. The guy is an outright disgrace and has ridiculed himself and in fact the rest of english football in the way he has tried to defend this decision. I would have some respect if he had stuck with the initial "i thought there was contact" excuse. I'm not really sure how much of this came across on TV but at the game he warmed up with the Liverpool players, at half time he was walking side by side with Benitez out onto the pitch to the centre circle deep in discussion and after the game he tops this by failing to even remember the name of the United player he had already booked and gave a penalty against. Even if he isn't being influenced by these points why the hell did he leave himself open to such complaints? I know this is only the first game of the season and Unitedites are happy as a whole with a draw against such a good team it really pisses me off to wait 12 years to get back into the premiership and then suffer such a blow. I will restate my initial question "would we have got a penalty like that away at anfield?" ask yourself this and see what the answer is. After seeing Watford suffer at the hands of two equally unfair penalty claims I now look forward to a long season of such refereeing inconsistencies. Best league in the world? Then why do we put up with biased refereeing decisions? Thanks for letting us all know about rule 12. We have all changed our minds and now admit that rather than being incompetent Styles is actually a hero for giving the first ever penalty for this reason.

Seriously, how can you suggest that “the sheffield united player” attempted to trip “Stevie” rather than win the ball which at the point of the tackle was there to be won.

The simple fact is the referee saw contact that wasn’t there, gave a penalty without even thinking of consulting his linesman having sprinted to stand on the penalty spot. He had the conviction of thought to give the penalty but then decided he wasn’t too sure after all so he didn’t take any further action when in fact had it been a foul it should have been a straight red. Following this he does an interview on sky saying that there was contact, decides then maybe there wasn’t so on a later interview with MOTD he decides to change his story to “intent to trip” without any further explanation behind the change of tact or what psychic powers he used to decide Morgan’s intent in that split second where he was forced to slide in.

The guy is an outright disgrace and has ridiculed himself and in fact the rest of english football in the way he has tried to defend this decision. I would have some respect if he had stuck with the initial “i thought there was contact” excuse. I’m not really sure how much of this came across on TV but at the game he warmed up with the Liverpool players, at half time he was walking side by side with Benitez out onto the pitch to the centre circle deep in discussion and after the game he tops this by failing to even remember the name of the United player he had already booked and gave a penalty against. Even if he isn’t being influenced by these points why the hell did he leave himself open to such complaints?

I know this is only the first game of the season and Unitedites are happy as a whole with a draw against such a good team it really pisses me off to wait 12 years to get back into the premiership and then suffer such a blow. I will restate my initial question “would we have got a penalty like that away at anfield?” ask yourself this and see what the answer is. After seeing Watford suffer at the hands of two equally unfair penalty claims I now look forward to a long season of such refereeing inconsistencies.

Best league in the world?

Then why do we put up with biased refereeing decisions?

]]> By: Soupdragon2 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2197 Soupdragon2 Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:49:21 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2197 Don't show me the rules for direct free-kicks. He didn't attempt to trip him up, he slid for the ball, and got it dinked past him. Gerrard then flung his leg back to PRETEND he was hit. Don’t show me the rules for direct free-kicks.

He didn’t attempt to trip him up, he slid for the ball, and got it dinked past him. Gerrard then flung his leg back to PRETEND he was hit.

]]> By: Villa_for_live http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-vs-sheffield-united-190806/501/#comment-2161 Villa_for_live Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:12:50 +0000 http://soccerlens.com/liverpool-1-1-sheffield-united/2029501.html#comment-2161 Soupdragon2, this was my first post on this site, I saw it on newsnow and I just wanted to make my point here :) ok the ref said there was a contact wich we both now is wrong. But the laws of the game clearly say there is no need to contact to be made. Just read Law 12 :) Law 12 - Fouls & Misconduct Direct free kick A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: * kicks or attempts to kick an opponent * <b>trips or attempts to trip an opponent</b> * jumps at an opponent * charges an opponent * strikes or attempts to strike an opponent * pushes an opponent Soupdragon2, this was my first post on this site, I saw it on newsnow and I just wanted to make my point here :)

ok the ref said there was a contact wich we both now is wrong. But the laws of the game clearly say there is no need to contact to be made.

Just read Law 12 :)

Law 12 – Fouls & Misconduct

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a player commits any of the following six offences in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

* kicks or attempts to kick an opponent
* trips or attempts to trip an opponent
* jumps at an opponent
* charges an opponent
* strikes or attempts to strike an opponent
* pushes an opponent

]]>