Not to mention the fact that it was a high challenge with studs showing, and the player seemed to have no complaints about the red. 

 

Fair red and penalty for me. And a decent point in the end considering both our goals were a bit fortuitous and the chances they had.

So an obvious opportunity means an open goal?

No it means having no defenders in the vacinity.

It means the ball not travelling at an acute away from goal at pace.

Not to mention the fact that it was a high challenge with studs showing, and the player seemed to have no complaints about the red. 

 

Fair red and penalty for me. And a decent point in the end considering both our goals were a bit fortuitous and the chances they had.

He's been suspended for one game I believe. If it was for dangerous or serious foul play he'd be sitting for three.

Ignoring the high challenge, if Gomis is not fouled he knocks it into an open goal for me. Cahill wouldn't have got there. Even if Cahill has a slight chance of getting there, it is still an obvious goal scoring opportunity.

 

Not that bothered if we don't win it. I'll be happy if we end the season like this:

Compete for the title. Win it or not as long as we compete.

Go far in the champions league

Win a domestic cup

Keep mourinho regardless of what happens.

I'm confident there will be a massive rebuilding next summer anyway.

I'd like to retain it, but as you say, it's not everything:

I'd be happy:

1) Compete for the league

2) Win a cup

3) Get further in Champions League than last year

4) Spoil Liverpool's season again

Edited August 9, 201510 yr by NorthernMonkey

I think the ref has to take some blame. Let's face it both decisions were marginal so a bit of balance would have been penalty and yellow.

Anyone remember szczesny for Arsenal coming out and chopping down Mata (I think it was) when we lost 3-5 at home. Critical decision but ref said he couldn't be 100% so awarded a yellow. Well that was even more clear cut.

It's actually has to be an OBVIOUS opportunity for it to be a red as per the law of the game.

The fact we are all debating whether Cahill could have been a factor clearly indicates it wasn't OBVIOUS.

well if the keeper hadn't upended him I would have thought there was an obvious opportunity for him to score, Cahill or not.

No it means having no defenders in the vacinity.

It means the ball not travelling at an acute away from goal at pace.

the law doesn't mention defenders its a sending off if you deny an obvious goalscoring OPPORTUNITY if you commit a foul punishable by a free kick or a penalty to someone moving towards the goal....law 12

He's been suspended for one game I believe. If it was for dangerous or serious foul play he'd be sitting for three.

yeah correct, so it must have been for denying a goalscoring opportunity then....that picture upthread is pretty conclusive.

Red or not, I still don't think Courtois should have rushed out. Taking someone down there is always risking both a red and a pen. Would rather he stayed in goal and tried his chances at saving it. At least then if he didn't it's only 2-2 with 10 men. Obviously he made a split second decision and it didn't pay off this time, unusual as he usually always gets it right.

I like the way they dragged our players back behind our offside line with dummy runs, and then exposed our high back line, this is something that needs to be addressed, any good manager will be trying the same trick.

Not quite, the run was not a dummy run, Taylor was looking to receive the ball and Willian rightly tracked him, however once he reaches the back line he HAS to be alive to what they are doing and not just stay in. that is 100% an individual error and nothing to do with a high back line, if Willian doesnt go deeper than the back 4, or pushes up as soon as he realises the ball isnt coming then Gomis is 2/3 yards, not even borderline, for me that is a good line spoilt by a lack of concentration

yeah correct, so it must have been for denying a goalscoring opportunity then....that picture upthread is pretty conclusive.

 

That picture is so unconclusive as to be a joke, from that picture you'd assume the ball was going straight and that Gomis hadn't already touched it and was merely running onto a ball.

 

The truth, the ball was going at 45 degrees away from goal, Gomis wouldn't have got it until it was fairly wide of the goal, due to his heavy touch, every likelihood that Cahill who was running at that 45 degree angle would have got there first.

 

I know you think it was stonewall, and I respect your right to express your opinion, don't say daft things like 'its pretty conclusive'

Not quite, the run was not a dummy run, Taylor was looking to receive the ball and Willian rightly tracked him, however once he reaches the back line he HAS to be alive to what they are doing and not just stay in. that is 100% an individual error and nothing to do with a high back line, if Willian doesnt go deeper than the back 4, or pushes up as soon as he realises the ball isnt coming then Gomis is 2/3 yards, not even borderline, for me that is a good line spoilt by a lack of concentration

 

He pulled William into an offside position and then dumped him there and ran back, call it what you want, but it's a good way of exposing a high back line.

MATCH OF THE DAY (MOTD) 8/8/15 – WATCH ONLINE FREE

 

http://www.matchdrama.com/match-of-the-day-motd-8815-watch-online-free/

That picture is so unconclusive as to be a joke, from that picture you'd assume the ball was going straight and that Gomis hadn't already touched it and was merely running onto a ball.

 

The truth, the ball was going at 45 degrees away from goal, Gomis wouldn't have got it until it was fairly wide of the goal, due to his heavy touch, every likelihood that Cahill who was running at that 45 degree angle would have got there first.

 

I know you think it was stonewall, and I respect your right to express your opinion, don't say daft things like 'its pretty conclusive'

its pretty conclusive though isn't it ?

That picture is so unconclusive as to be a joke, from that picture you'd assume the ball was going straight and that Gomis hadn't already touched it and was merely running onto a ball.

 

The truth, the ball was going at 45 degrees away from goal, Gomis wouldn't have got it until it was fairly wide of the goal, due to his heavy touch, every likelihood that Cahill who was running at that 45 degree angle would have got there first.

 

I know you think it was stonewall, and I respect your right to express your opinion, don't say daft things like 'its pretty conclusive'

he was lucky to get done for denying an opportunity, he could well have been carded for dangerous play.

And gomez touch was heavy because the keeper came flying in with his boot raised and studs showing.

yeah correct, so it must have been for denying a goalscoring opportunity then....that picture upthread is pretty conclusive.

No its not.

You can't tell the speed the ball is running away from the attacker and you also cannot determine exactly what angle it's going either. ie closer to the corner flag than the post.

Law 12 that you quote is for fouls and misconduct, of you dig a bit deeper you'll find rules for the 'professional foul'

Two criteria of it are a) no defenders close enough to defend the opportunity and b) the ball and/or player travelling in the direction of the goal. If there is any doubt then the player should stay in the pitch. It's not the offside rule where you just throw the advantage at the striker.

he was lucky to get done for denying an opportunity, he could well have been carded for dangerous play.

And gomez touch was heavy because the keeper came flying in with his boot raised and studs showing.

Seriously stop with tbe studs up crap.

Go and watch the video again, when you do you'll see Tibo is already pulling out of the challenge before the point of contact. His foot isnt studs up and it's more or or less a clash of knees. A very clumsy trip.

Seriously stop with tbe studs up crap.

Go and watch the video again, when you do you'll see Tibo is already pulling out of the challenge before the point of contact. His foot isnt studs up and it's more or or less a clash of knees. A very clumsy trip.

his foot was raised, his studs were up, he bottled it.

Anyway, it was little Eva's fault.

No its not.

You can't tell the speed the ball is running away from the attacker and you also cannot determine exactly what angle it's going either. ie closer to the corner flag than the post.

Law 12 that you quote is for fouls and misconduct, of you dig a bit deeper you'll find rules for the 'professional foul'

Two criteria of it are a) no defenders close enough to defend the opportunity and b) the ball and/or player travelling in the direction of the goal. If there is any doubt then the player should stay in the pitch. It's not the offside rule where you just throw the advantage at the striker.

I read the FA law on it, is that what you are quoting ?

his foot was raised, his studs were up, he bottled it.

Anyway, it was little Eva's fault.

Bit of Troll to be fair arn't you....?

I just watched it again....his studs go into the strikers kneecap !!

Bit of Troll to be fair arn't you....?

oh dear.....watch the video. ...his studs go into the strikers kneecap.

What's all this about "troll," ??....bit lame

oh dear.....watch the video. ...his studs go into the strikers kneecap.

What's all this about "troll," ??....bit lame

Not as lame as the 'it was little Eva's fault' that was what I was alluding to.

Not as lame as the 'it was little Eva's fault' that was what I was alluding to.

it was a joke. José has been having a go at little Eva after the game.

Lighten up....seen the video again ?