Howard Webb

[Harry H]

He is a cheat.Pure and simple.
He was scared of Fergie,now he's scared of Jose.
A pathetic excuse for a man.

 

[Harry H]

Looks like Webb has left Man U and signed for Chelsea, Liverpool been robbed now in 2 matches and gone from top to 5th because of it.

Bad officials have cost them two points with two of the worst decisions of the season.
Unfortunately this is happening too often and these Traffic Wardens in shorts need to get their acts together and accept criticism instead of insisting that they are rightall of the time and nobody being allowed to tell the truth about them.

 

[joeinbrighton]

Bad officials have cost them two points with two of the worst decisions of the season.
Unfortunately this is happening too often and these Traffic Wardens in shorts need to get their acts together and accept criticism instead of insisting that they are rightall of the time and nobody being allowed to tell the truth about them.

Raheem Sterling missing an easy chance in the 2nd half was as much responsible for Liverpool losing at Man City as the linesman was for flagging for offside against Sterling in the 1st half when he made the classic mistake of flagging on the basis of where the attacker was when he received the ball rather than where he was when it was played.

 

[martin tyler]

Funniest bit was Mourinho.
Suarez should be booked for provoking Eto
We should be discussing the foul on Hazard.
Rodgers only see from his point of view because he is young whilst nasically saying he is seeing it from a nuteral point of view.
Lol blue tinted glasses as normal.

 

[Soulman]

Raheem Sterling missing an easy chance in the 2nd half was as much responsible for Liverpool losing at Man City as the linesman was for flagging for offside against Sterling in the 1st half when he made the classic mistake of flagging on the basis of where the attacker was when he received the ball rather than where he was when it was played.

So the offside goal that was not offside was not "as much responsible for Liverpool losing at Man City" then. Funny that, it would have put Liverpool 2-0 up, and.....it would have made the game a draw, unless i missed something.

 

[Harry H]

Raheem Sterling missing an easy chance in the 2nd half was as much responsible for Liverpool losing at Man City as the linesman was for flagging for offside against Sterling in the 1st half when he made the classic mistake of flagging on the basis of where the attacker was when he received the ball rather than where he was when it was played.

That linesman flagged for something he couldn't have seen because it didn't happen.That is not a mistake.It is cheating.
He flagged for something that didn't exist.How could he do that?
A miss from a player happens all of the time.That is an accident or lack of skill.
To give something that you couldn't have seen because it didn't happen is very different.

 

[joeinbrighton]

So the offside goal that was not offside was not "as much responsible for Liverpool losing at Man City" then. Funny that, it would have put Liverpool 2-0 up, and.....it would have made the game a draw, unless i missed something.

Not necessarily. Always makes me laugh when people say 'if he'd scored that goal, they'd have been this much in front etc'. Liverpool could have gone 2-0 up, started defending very deep and City could still have come back and won, you just don't know. City ultimately won the match because they are a better team than Liverpool and are more used to closing out those type of matches than the current Liverpool side are at the moment. You can talk about how Liverpool have had decisions go against them until the cows come home, but the fact is they have lost their last 2 matches from winning positions. That says to me that there are deficiencies defensively and mentally which they also need to overcome.

 

[joeinbrighton]

That linesman flagged for something he couldn't have seen because it didn't happen.That is not a mistake.It is cheating.
He flagged for something that didn't exist.How could he do that?

Cheating? That's a strong word. More a case of assumption and sometimes we know they can be the mother of something. Quite possibly he was watching the player who had the ball and didn't immediately see where Sterling's starting position was when the ball was played, but was fooled by Sterling's pace into thinking he was in an offside position. You probably see a linesman make a mistake with the position of the attacker when the ball was played versus their position when they received the ball at least once in most matches you see at all levels of the game. Does that make them all cheats? I'd say not, but they need more training on that scenario because of the pace of the game now. It's also an area of the game where they should embrace technology more to come to the right decision.

 

[Soulman]

Not necessarily. Always makes me laugh when people say 'if he'd scored that goal, they'd have been this much in front etc'. Liverpool could have gone 2-0 up, started defending very deep and City could still have come back and won, you just don't know. City ultimately won the match because they are a better team than Liverpool and are more used to closing out those type of matches than the current Liverpool side are at the moment. You can talk about how Liverpool have had decisions go against them until the cows come home, but the fact is they have lost their last 2 matches from winning positions. That says to me that there are deficiencies defensively and mentally which they also need to overcome.

So in other words, in your what if, what if scenarios.........if the goal had stood (it WAS scored) then the score would have been 2-2.....but what if eh.

 

[joeinbrighton]

So in other words, in your what if, what if scenarios.........if the goal had stood then the score would have been 2-2.....but what if eh.

It could have been, but the game could have also then become more stretched and more goals might have been scored, who knows? Blaming officials when you lose when there are other reasons you lost, ultimately, is losers' talk.

 

[Harry H]

Cheating? That's a strong word. More a case of assumption and sometimes we know they can be the mother of something. Quite possibly he was watching the player who had the ball and didn't immediately see where Sterling's starting position was when the ball was played, but was fooled by Sterling's pace into thinking he was in an offside position. You probably see a linesman make a mistake with the position of the attacker when the ball was played versus their position when they received the ball at least once in most matches you see at all levels of the game. Does that make them all cheats? I'd say not, but they need more training on that scenario because of the pace of the game now. It's also an area of the game where they should embrace technology more to come to the right decision.

Officials shouldn't "Assume" anything.
He did not see an offside as there wasn't one.
Therefore there is no way he should have given it.
This means he made up something that didn't happen.
To my mind that is cheating.

 

[Soulman]

It could have been, but the game could have also then become more stretched and more goals might have been scored, who knows? Blaming officials when you lose when there are other reasons you lost, ultimately, is losers' talk.

I don't doubt your assumptions, as you say it COULD also have become more stretched. The fact though, and not what might of been, is a perfectly good goal was disallowed, which assuming the match was played out like it was....would have made the score 2-2.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

All refs are clowns.
Week after week of poor refereeing.
The Italian guy was ok and the filly assistant that Keys wanted to smash seems very good.
Worst ref ever, Graham Poll, but still Talksport ask for his opinions.
Apart from that all no hopers

I think the referees are on a hiding to nothing. They have to make instantaneous calls whereas we get the benefit of five different angles within a minute.

 

[joeinbrighton]

Officials shouldn't "Assume" anything.

Officials are human beings with human frailties. All of us as human beings make assumptions in our work and in our wider life every day of our lives. Unless you want the game to be refereed by robots who have 6 eyes so that they can be able to both watch the player playing a pass and the player receiving the ball in a simultaneous motion, assumptions will occur and officials will make mistakes. That's where I feel that technology could be put to good use in the game, however, in trying to help the correct decision be reached as often as possible.

 

[joeinbrighton]

I don't doubt your assumptions, as you say it COULD also have become more stretched. The fact though, and not what might of been, is a perfectly good goal was disallowed, which assuming the match was played out like it was....would have made the score 2-2.

And on that basis, had Sterling not missed a sitter, Liverpool would have won 3-2. So on the basis of your argument, he cost them 2 points.

 

[Harry H]

And on that basis, had Sterling not missed a sitter, Liverpool would have won 3-2. So on the basis of your argument, he cost them 2 points.

Not a valid point.
Sterling tried to score,but either had not the skill or ability to do so.
In the same way Mignolet tried to make a save.
These are PHYSICAL faux pas.
That linesman made up an offside.
He made it up.It didn't happen.There was no offside,but he made one up.
You do get it??

 

[Soulman]

And on that basis, had Sterling not missed a sitter, Liverpool would have won 3-2. So on the basis of your argument, he cost them 2 points.

No not at all.
You stated "Raheem Sterling missing an easy chance in the 2nd half was as much responsible for Liverpool losing at Man City as the linesman was for flagging for offside against Sterling in the 1st half when he made the classic mistake of flagging on the basis of where the attacker was when he received the ball rather than where he was when it was played." quote

I just pointed out that had the onside goal, which was a perfectly good goal, stood, then this, in your words "was as much responsible for Liverpool losing at Man City"

Had Sterling scored that goal it could have been 3-2, but he didn't.

 

[joeinbrighton]

That linesman made up an offside.
He made it up.It didn't happen.There was no offside,but he made one up.
You do get it??

He didn't make it up. We're not in Italy, there's no conspiracy. He made a misjudgement and thought there was an offside where there wasn't one. Ultimately, it was still a mistake, as was Sterling's glaring inability to score from close range and so too Mignolet's inexplicable handling.

 

[Soulman]

He didn't make it up. We're not in Italy, there's no conspiracy. He made a misjudgement and thought there was an offside where there wasn't one. Ultimately, it was still a mistake, as was Sterling's glaring inability to score from close range and so too Mignolet's inexplicable handling.

Ignoring Sterling's inability to score (we know that) and the keepers inexplicable handling (we know and saw that as well) and the fact that this COULD have contributed to a different result, had they not happened, but they DID. Then a perfectly good goal, whether it was a mistake by the lino, DID affect the final result, which happened to be 2-1.

 

[Harry H]

I thought that officials are supposed to give what they see.Not what they couldn't possibly have seen because it didn't happen.
What did he see?
Was it a hallucination.
If officials can give what they don't see then the game is no longer fair.
Any official can give any decision based on things that they didn't actually see,but what they assumed/guessed had happened.
That is ridiculous and would kill the game completely.