[Archived] Rovers 0-1 Liverpool

[tchocky]

5. We need to stop playing one-touch sloppy passes between the back four. On another day it could have cost us dearly.

399842[/snapback]

That was all part of the plan (maybe not the sloppy bit). Some people on here were overjoyed to see us passing the ball around nicely, when in fact it was part of MH's game plan to draw out the Liverpool team from sitting low and defending their lead. It didn't really work, but the lads stuck to the plan alright. I didn't think many of those passes were sloppy to the point where it could hurt us. Maybe one or two at most.

[thenodrog]

5. We need to stop playing one-touch sloppy passes between the back four. On another day it could have cost us dearly.

399842[/snapback]

Down to Liverpools excellent pressing tactics once they were in front. Tactics that MH has got us doing this season, and previously used so effectively by Bolton and Everton. In fact Liverpool must be like a Moyes coached Everton Ladies FC...... supremely competative but underneath just a bunch of soft tarts.

[BRFC4EVA]

A VERY frustrating day all round really, i was left kicking the living day-lights out of the seat in front of me in the bbe lower when the final whistle went

There have only been 2 occasions that ive been really angry at a Rovers match this yr, out of the 30 odd ive seen (inc cups), the first was that pathetic failure to create a chance against 10 men for 80 mins against everton and y'sday was the 2nd. However whereas the first was Rovers fault, the blame is FULLY on the linesman and will be sending him a bill for my transport and ticket. ANYBODY GOT HIS NAME AND ADDRESS??

It was nice to see a packed out Ewood Park, i heard at the ticket office when i was getting my brum tickets that it was a complete sell out although i did see some gaps in the JW upper and behind the poles of the RS. Heard some reports of scouse in our ends, didnt see any in the bbe tho, but thats par really. Onto the match.

Dont think that we deserved to loose the game. Alot of points have been made that luck evens itself out and that liverpool had the better of the chances. Liverpool have already screwd us over once this season at Anfield so for luck to even out we derserved a coupla of lucky descions. Instead we will prob get lucky against b'ham or summit which is unfortunate for them! Secondly the point about them creating more chances than us. Completley irrelevant, as they were on the counter attack. Had that ludicrus goal not been given in the first half they wouldnt have had anywhere near as much space going forward. It was so important that we got the first goal, but alas couldnt get it

Though Reid was terrific and we passed the ball around very well. We got some decent crosses in from both sides and pressed forward well in the second half, but hypia and carra were immense, unbeliveible performance from those 2!

A coupla other notes. Atmosphere wasnt too bad at the start, but deflated when we went 1 nil down as expected. liverpool fans were crap for 7k, we made much more noise at anfield! Another ###### taking thing is the way we've bent over backwards for this lot, changing the kick off, giving them loads of tickets, only for them to score a goal that wasnt and go and bore us to death after that! What the hell is going on FFS? 4th has gone im afraid, but lets stay positive, a win against Brum is enough for 6th place!!

Edited April 17, 2006 by BRFC4EVA

[Florida Rover]

. ANYBODY GOT HIS NAME AND ADDRESS??

399896[/snapback]

Barry Sygmuta from north yorkshire is all I could come up with but I did find a referee's forum discussing said offside call and even the referees there can't get a consensus of whether Cisse was offsides or not.How bloody stupid is that?In fact,some of the "referees" on that forum break down the technical info from FIFA chapter and verse and point out that it was a brilliant "no call" of offside.Imagine if this takes place this summer and England are knocked out by such a result.There would be an enormous uproar form the British press about the injustice.it seems in it's efforts to encourage more attacking football,FIFA has made offsides an obtuse rule that no one can ever agree with another about.It is all about opinion.(Another fault of the handball =opinion)Forcing linesmen or AR's as they like to be known to make opinion calls about whether someone is active or not in a split second is a recipe for disaster.

here's the referee forum discussing our incident

Florida Rover

[Neil Weaver]

the blame is FULLY on the linesman and will be sending him a bill for my transport and ticket. ANYBODY GOT HIS NAME AND ADDRESS??

399896[/snapback]

Courtesy of the Daily Telegraph...........

Of all the presents the Liverpool manager Rafael Benitez received for his 46th birthday, Barry Sygmuta's interpretation of the offside rule would have been the most unexpected surprise.

Wonder if he's an asylum seeker ?

EDIT : beaten to it by Mr Florida

Edited April 17, 2006 by Neil Weaver

[Florida Rover]

That's ok Neil.Barry Sygmuta hails from

Northallerton.So there you have it.

[colin]

FIFA has made  offsides an obtuse rule that no one can ever agree with another about.It is all about opinion.(Another fault of the handball =opinion)Forcing linesmen or AR's as they like to be known to make opinion calls about whether someone is active or not in a split second is a recipe for disaster.

Florida Rover

399919[/snapback]

From today's Guardian

At least an acrimonious occasion punctured by spats between opposing players ended with some unity between the managers, Rafael Benítez and Mark Hughes both criticising the complicated offside rule that allowed Liverpool's winner to stand. "There's too much open to interpretation, and no one knows where they are or what the rule is now," growled Hughes. The fact that his opposite number concurred suggested he had a point.

Spot on Florida,

It's not the ref, it's FIFA's stupid rule which the refs have to interpret.

[OscarRaven]

Whats shocking is that us, the ref, the lineo's, scousers all agree on the facts. The interpretation is all that divides us - 99% of football fans agree that that was offside the fact that the offcials have "justification" makes a mockery of the modern game, I'm not going to follow a sport where the rules are made up as the superstar ref goes along - I want clear rules and a fair game when I hand over my cash.

If this "error" had been made against a big club they woukd be media hell on

As it is nothing will happen as it Rovers a team who have over achieved and should be grateful.

FFS sort it out and clarify the rules: offsides, handballs, diving, time-wasting - two much open to interpretation and too many COSTLY bad calls are bieng made week after week, yes skysports love it has everyone tuning into thier news program to see the "incident".

Anyway Cisse not interferring with play inside the opposing teams penalty area! stick you F#*cking interpretation up your a%@e, well done your the most famous lineo in Britain - what an achievement. Incidently if I was Cisse I'd be ashamed, now the whole world knows he's useless and lazy after all he can't even be bothered to interfere with play in our penalty area. Eurostar Time table needed?

[roversmum]

Good Heavens! After reading that discussion on the referees' board, I feel they are even worse than I thought. They seem to be taking a positive delight in announcing that in their opinion it was not offside!

One thing is for sure, though. I said in a recent thread that I was not happy about the way players put up their hands to signal that the opposition player is offside.

Please, Sparky, can you tell our lot to stop doing that and play to the (word I'm not going to say because I'm a lady ) whistle?

[Shaddy]

From today's Guardian

Spot on Florida,

It's not the ref, it's FIFA's stupid rule which the refs have to interpret.

399925[/snapback]

The solution I am about to suggest would have legitimized the goal yesterday, so I don't expect positive feedback. Instead of many areas of interpretation, reduce the rule to a single (actually a couple of) interpretation that already exists. That of a player impeding his opponent (and of whether a player has touched the ball).

Perhaps the best way to go would be to legitimize the actions of a player in an off-side position, as long as they neither touch the ball, or impede a defender from intercepting it. That means they could even dummy a pass, which was what Cisse effectively did yesterday. The term active in relation to off-side infringements would need to be killed, because you would be allowed to be active. Just not a direct recepient of a pass.

I don't think the rule needs to be popular. It just needs to be clear cut. Of course, this does nothing to stop referee assistants from badly judging the off-sidedness of active players. Only video referees might solve that problem (but of course, how?).

[OscarRaven]

How many times have we been caught off-side in the last three games?

Ball played over the top everyone chases no-one has actually reached the ball when the off-side flag is raised, so how can they have been offside?

Offside is a joke, course the ref and lineo love it thier names are up in lights and all thier mates are talking about it.

[OscarRaven]

The solution I am about to suggest would have legitimized the goal yesterday, so I don't expect positive feedback. Instead of many areas of interpretation, reduce the rule to a single (actually a couple of) interpretation that already exists. That of a player impeding his opponent (and of whether a player has touched the ball).

Perhaps the best way to go would be to legitimize the actions of a player in an off-side position, as long as they neither touch the ball, or impede a defender from intercepting it. That means they could even dummy a pass, which was what Cisse effectively did yesterday. The term active in relation to off-side infringements would need to be killed, because you would be allowed to be active. Just not a direct recepient of a pass.

I don't think the rule needs to be popular. It just needs to be clear cut. Of course, this does nothing to stop referee assistants from badly judging the off-sidedness of active players. Only video referees might solve that problem (but of course, how?).

399928[/snapback]

There is of course a far easier solution bring back the offside rule. The one we all knew, understood and played to. Imagine trying explain that crap to the missus.

I came home last night looked at my Girlfriend and told her "remember when I tried to explain the offside rule? Well you were right all along it is just random when they flag"

[Eddie]

The solution I am about to suggest would have legitimized the goal yesterday, so I don't expect positive feedback. Instead of many areas of interpretation, reduce the rule to a single (actually a couple of) interpretation that already exists. That of a player impeding his opponent (and of whether a player has touched the ball).

Perhaps the best way to go would be to legitimize the actions of a player in an off-side position, as long as they neither touch the ball, or impede a defender from intercepting it. That means they could even dummy a pass, which was what Cisse effectively did yesterday. The term active in relation to off-side infringements would need to be killed, because you would be allowed to be active. Just not a direct recepient of a pass.

I don't think the rule needs to be popular. It just needs to be clear cut. Of course, this does nothing to stop referee assistants from badly judging the off-sidedness of active players. Only video referees might solve that problem (but of course, how?).

399928[/snapback]

If you are going to do that you may as well just get rid of the entire thing. Just go back to the simple two men between you and the goal. If the ball goes anywhere near you and you don't have that going for you then you are offside, simple as. I don't know why the governing bodies have to play around with the laws, but it would be nice if they just realised they weren't up to it and went back to the old rules.

[Shaddy]

There is of course a far easier solution bring back the offside rule. The one we all knew, understood and played to. Imagine trying explain that crap to the missus.

I came home last night looked at my Girlfriend and told her "remember when I tried to explain the offside rule?  Well you were right all along it is just random when they flag"

399930[/snapback]

To be honest with you, I think an improvement in the off-side rule was a necessary natural evolution of the game. We have less nil all draws these days, and whilst I could say for certain that it is because of changes to the off-side rule, it may have played a part.

In anycase, the off-side rule, in any of its' forms since the first organised football matches has been a contentious rule. It didn't exist at one time at all remember.

Forgetting my suggestion from above, my other suggestion would be to preserve the pre-active/non-active interpretation, but to increase the area where-by you cannot be called off-side from just your own half, to your own half plus the first opposing quarter.

I haven't really thought of any flaw in this, but I am sure someone can point one out.

EDIT - weren't the original changes to the rules (way back now I recall) made to increase the number of goals scored/make the game more appealing (perhaps to US audiences, circa WC94)?

Edited April 17, 2006 by Shaddy

[raoul]

I know it has been done to death, but you might be interested in this quote from a Liverpool forum:

"The goal didn't come about because the offside rule is stupid, it came about because the ref and linesmen made an absolute howler. It should have been hauled back, but credit to Fowler and Morientes for getting on with it. Play to the whistle and all that. At least two Blackburn defenders stopped dead and turned to the ref, when they could've easily got themselves in front of Fowler as the ball came back in to him.

Was a bit disappointed with Cisse's attempt at cracking on that he wasn't interfering after the event. Wasn't exactly helpful, and it's no wonder he was on the end of some questionable challenges after that.

From Blackburn's point of view, I'm just glad it didn't happen in the last five minutes of the match. If we'd have been in their position, I'd have been livid, but still would've expected to get something from the match from 1-0 down. If Blackburn end up a draw short of a CL place next season, I'll really feel for them.

All this said, the rule on the whole isn't being implemented well. Any rule that asks the officials to have an opinion on a situation as opposed to one thing being alright and another being wrong always ends up conning most teams over the course of a season. Yes, they do seem to even themselves out, but I'd rather they weren't there to start off with.

And I have a horrible feeling that bad refereeing on this matter will end up having a say in the destiny of the World Cup."

Here is the link if anyone cares - http://www.liverpoolfc-newkit.co.uk/cgi-bi...=ST;f=1;t=17268

Everyone agrees it is silly, and 'over a season it all evens out' isn't really good enough. Is there a formal way for fans to input into FIFA decisions/discussions on these things? Anyone know? After all, with all the energy spent whinging about this, wouldn't we be better to direct in a constructive way?

[tcj_jones]

QUOTE(Florida Rover @ Apr 17 2006, 21:41 )

FIFA has made  offsides an obtuse rule that no one can ever agree with another about.It is all about opinion.(Another fault of the handball =opinion)Forcing linesmen or AR's as they like to be known to make opinion calls about whether someone is active or not in a split second is a recipe for disaster.

Florida Rover

From today's Guardian

QUOTE

At least an acrimonious occasion punctured by spats between opposing players ended with some unity between the managers, Rafael Benítez and Mark Hughes both criticising the complicated offside rule that allowed Liverpool's winner to stand. "There's too much open to interpretation, and no one knows where they are or what the rule is now," growled Hughes. The fact that his opposite number concurred suggested he had a point.

Spot on Florida,

It's not the ref, it's FIFA's stupid rule which the refs have to interpret.

I'm sorry, but as stupid as this rule is, you'd have to be an absolute moron to interpret the way the ref did.

How more "active" do you have to be? If you're offside and touch the ball then you're given offside anyway by the usual rules that have stood for bloody ages. So if you're not active because you didn't touch it, then there is no need for the "active" rule. The ref ###### up, bad, and he deserves to be punished. A horrendous decision like that should see him demoted to the championship. It really was that bad a decision.

Edited April 17, 2006 by tcj_jones

[RevidgeBlue]

All this crapola about the new law being wrong and difficult to interpret is a complete red herring imo.

The fact is the officials got the decision wrong, plain and simple, end of.

Cisse pulled away from/ missed the ball by the merest of fractions. Of course he was "active" if that's what you want to call it. Was he moving away from the ball or clearly trying to get back onside? Was he hellers like.

Would the goal have stood had it been us on the attack and Chelski ManUre Arsenal or Liverpool on the receiving end? We all know the answer to that one I think.

[Shaddy]

All this crapola about the new law being wrong and difficult to interpret is a complete red herring imo.

The fact is the officials got the decision wrong, plain and simple, end of.

No doubt about that. Although my rule (interpretation) change suggestion would have legitimized the goal, what happened was definitely unfair. Defenders only take the huge risk of stopping when they are fairly sure of the off-side situation. The stop is two-fold. One, it is to preserve the player positioning so it is plain for all to see, and two, because it puts the pressure squarely on the offficials to make a call either way. Our defenders were 100% in the right.

Cisse pulled away from/ missed the ball by the merest of fractions. Of course he was "active" if that's what you want to call it. Was he moving away from the ball or clearly trying to get back onside? Was he hellers like.

Would the goal have stood had it been us on the attack and Chelski ManUre Arsenal or Liverpool on the receiving end? We all know the answer to that one I think. 

399937[/snapback]

Agree on these points. I think most agree on the biggest problem being the term "active". To me, I think FIFA's intentions got very clouded along the way. To not be active, i.e. in active should really only be if you are lying injured, or returning to an on-side position well away from where the ball is currently in-play.

Does anyone recall if it was '94 when Romario raced away onto a ball played long, whilst Bebeto was trotting back from an off-side position, barely yards from the play? To my mind, the interpretation has been contentious for quite a long while now.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Shaddy

[Shaddy]

Does anyone recall if it was '94 when Romario raced away onto a ball played long, whilst Bebeto was trotting back from an off-side position, barely yards from the play? To my mind, the interpretation has been contentious for quite a long while now.

399939[/snapback]

Got it. From http://www.v-brazil.com/culture/sports/wor...ted-States.html

Next, Brazil won Holland. In the second Brazilian goal, Romário was clearly off side, but he pretended he had not seen the ball; the referee considered that Romário was not participating of that play, and Bebeto scored.

other way round though. I think it may have even been for that World Cup where they issued a directive over the rules interpretation.

[Florida Rover]

There is of course a far easier solution bring back the offside rule. The one we all knew, understood and played to. Imagine trying explain that crap to the missus.

I came home last night looked at my Girlfriend and told her "remember when I tried to explain the offside rule?  Well you were right all along it is just random when they flag"

399930[/snapback]

That is the best explanation I've seen in a while!

Florida Rover

[philipl]

The one fact nobody has discussed is this:

THE BALL WAS PASSED TO CISSE. It was going directly to him. He had to get out of the way of it.

If the passer had not intended Cisse to be interfering with play why did he pass it to him? When he releases the ball he can only guess that Morientes is behind him running in from an onside position- as Morientes is out of the passer's vision when the ball is released.

That alone means Cisse was interfering.

Edited April 18, 2006 by philipl

[asianRover]

from the refree forum

http://www.officialsports.co.uk/cgi-bin/ub...=2;t=000298;p=0

The Law clearly defines "involvevment in active play" thus:

- Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate. (He did not)

- Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing (he did not) or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision (he did not) or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent (if either GK or defender were "distracted" by that leg waggle, perhaps they should find alternative employment).

IMHO Not offside, good decision in line with FIFA intent to reward attacking football.

???

so if im reading this correctly, if lua lua was in cisse's position and he did his usual somersults infront of the ball without touching it, that would be considered ok??

seeing all the people there agreeing with the call absolutey makes my stomach churn

IMO this rule is just set up so that fans, players, and mangers cannot argue with the refs whenever they make a mistake.

[thenodrog]

The one fact nobody has discussed is this:

THE BALL WAS PASSED TO CISSE. It was going directly to him. He had to get out of the way of it.

If the passer had not intended Cisse to be interfering with play why did he pass it to him? When he releases the ball he can only guess that Morientes is behind him running in from an onside position- as Morientes is out of the passer's vision when the ball is released.

That alone means Cisse was interfering.

399976[/snapback]

EXACTLY Philip. I too have been suprised that no commentator or pundit have mentioned that. He WAS interfering with play FULL STOP. If Cisse he had been stood further back in an onside position Fowler would have taken another option other than trying to chest the ball through to him. The ball would then not have run through to Morientes and no goal would have arisen. Whats wrong with people? Far too many 'experts' in the press / referees association / FA etc have never possessed the ability to kick a ball in anger imo.

They just dont know do they?

[Presty On Tour]

welll gutted with the result and furious with oh yeah the off-side desicion

with gerrard being rested i thought we were really in for a chance and the result is more gutting now as spuds crashed to the manks.

friedel, neil, nelson, reid and savage were all outstanding though our attack was poor or basically dominated by the scouse defence, bellamy was very quiet

dickov had our best chance, nice control mate, there are no excuses.

it's a real shame that a crap linesman desicion spoilt a game infront of an immense crowd of almost 30k and my easter sunday was ruined.

[Jan]

As someone else said to me, if a forward, in the opposition box, with the ball coming towards him is NOT interfering with play, what on earth is he being paid for?