Royals V Liverpool Match Thread

[paultheroyal]

London - as far as Halls goes i totally agree with you.

About the goals - point i was making was that next time fans moan about refs and not having rub of the green...just bring them back to this thread and match - because of the 2 goals for us that never were / nailed on penalty - and 2 yellows = a red!!

[RobRoyal]

London - as far as Halls goes i totally agree with you.

About the goals - point i was making was that next time fans moan about refs and not having rub of the green...just bring them back to this thread and match - because of the 2 goals for us that never were / nailed on penalty - and 2 yellows = a red!!

Yes, obviously we were fortunate to get away with Bikey's foul on Torres, but seriously, the idea of "interfering with play" is a real gray area - to say that the goals 'never were' is laughable. There has never been a consistent implementation of the interference rule, and there sure has hell have been plently of goals far more contentious than ours that have stood.

[Arch]

I actually thought Halls was pretty poor apart from the odd cross and his 2 offside goals!!

Cant beat opinions i guess!!

Liverpool had a player on the line for his goal.

LOL - you have made my day posting that!!!!

Watch the clip again and come back and let us know what is wrong with that goal!!

Gobby kant! Read the decent post immediately before you wrote this and tell me what's wrong with your post.

[Platypuss]

Well - we now all agree he was standing in an offside position as he was in front of the last but one defender....

the fact that (i think it was Duberry) stepped over the ball (must of nearly touched him) 2 yards out from the goal line is enough for me to be interfering with play - particulary as a defender was on the line about to defend the ball.

How exactly was the Reading player interfering with play when the ball was struck?

Convey's should have been disallowed, however.

[londinium]

I think the majority now agree that Halls goal was ok... when he struck the ball yes Doobs was in the middle of the goal in an off side position and did lift his foot over the ball, but the ball went in the left corner of the goal and the Liverpool defender was on the right side of the goal so would never have got to it. What you have to ask yourself is... if Doobs wasnt there, what would be the outcome... I beleive the answer would be 'a goal' as the defender wouldnt have reached the ball, so the goal is good.

As for Bobbys goal... 3 players offside, 2 definately not interfering with play and Lita standing infront of goalkeeper but not in his line of sight. I think this is tricky because if Lita wasnt there the again the outcome would have been the same as the keeper had a clear view and would not have got anywhere near it. The bit the rules him offside for me was the fact that he was close enough to the play for the keeper to think he might touch it and divert it in a different direction therefore not allowing the keeper to drop down quickly to attempt a save.

Again the majority seem to agree on the Halls issue... some great crosses, shit defending though.

[papereyes]

I thought Federici just tried to make himself big. Many lesser strikers would have shot early or given away which way they were going to dart giving him a chance. Torres just danced from one foot to the other perfectly balanced as he approached and Federici didn't know where he was going. At least he remained big. Normally the amount of time he stalled Torres for would have allowed a defender time to get back and make a challenge...

I think it is a little unfair to criticise him for that one.

Exactly. Barely 5 minutes earlier he'd done the same thing and saved from Yossi.

He kept coming on that one and kept narrowing the angle.

Fair enough, beaten by a £25 million man in one on one. Not going to be too hung up about it.

[Yorkshire Royal]

I think it is fair to say that nobody understands the offside rule anymore.. Me must definitely included...

[6ft Kerplunk]

I
As for Bobbys goal... 3 players offside, 2 definately not interfering with play and Lita standing infront of goalkeeper but not in his line of sight. I think this is tricky because if Lita wasnt there the again the outcome would have been the same as the keeper had a clear view and would not have got anywhere near it. The bit the rules him offside for me was the fact that he was close enough to the play for the keeper to think he might touch it and divert it in a different direction therefore not allowing the keeper to drop down quickly to attempt a save.

Lita wasn't stood in front of the keeper when Convey had the shot. Keeper has a clear line of sight to the ball and could have dived if he had reacted quicker. Lita only gets infront of him when he moves to his right to make sure the ball doesnt touch him. Its too late for the keeper to save it at that point and Lita is moving away from the ball not towards it. Within the rules I think you can argue it both ways but to me its offside.

Didn't understand why Garry 'million pound flop when a million pounds was a lot of money' BirtLOLes was getting in such a state when Duberry clattered Torres and got booked. Ref handled that perfectly, played advantage because the ball had broken to Crouch in an attacking position and then went back and booked Duberry at the next stoppage in play.

[Platypuss]

Didn't understand why Garry 'million pound flop when a million pounds was a lot of money' BirtLOLes was getting in such a state when Duberry clattered Torres and got booked. Ref handled that perfectly, played advantage because the ball had broken to Crouch in an attacking position and then went back and booked Duberry at the next stoppage in play.

Because the twat had already made up his mind that Duberry had got away with the challenge (as it fitted his newly developed agenda that we are dirty foulers), and then wasn't enough of a man to back down and acknowledge the ref got it spot on.

Typical $ky second-rate commentating, basically.

[londinium]

Didn't understand why Garry 'million pound flop when a million pounds was a lot of money' BirtLOLes was getting in such a state when Duberry clattered Torres and got booked. Ref handled that perfectly, played advantage because the ball had broken to Crouch in an attacking position and then went back and booked Duberry at the next stoppage in play.

Because the twat had already made up his mind that Duberry had got away with the challenge (as it fitted his newly developed agenda that we are dirty foulers), and then wasn't enough of a man to back down and acknowledge the ref got it spot on.

Typical $ky second-rate commentating, basically.

That bit of the commentary really irked with me along with the Liverpool cynical booking late in the game that Birtles shrugged off by saying the Liverpool player was 'tired'... Fcuk dont you think Doobs was a little tired after being run ragged by Torres all night. Also Birtles didnt bat an eyelid when both Long and Convey got sythed to the ground. Bobbys was an awful challenge.

In summary

Birtle = cock

[RoyalBlue]

A big LOL at anyone who says Convey goal should stand. Officials got that wrong end of.

Before anyone moans at refs again - consider the fact that tonight we got the rub of the green

Convey - goal offside
Halls - goal offside
Torres - penalty -
Bikey - should of been 2 yellows and off!!

What i would say is that Halls "disallowed goal" - the header back came from a liverpool - dont think anyone picked that up?

Anyway - as always gutted we lost....but next game up Pompey is what its all about.

A big LOL at those who don't understand the law relating to offside. How was the Halls' goal offside?

Whilst it is true that there was a Reading player nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent (the point being the keeper was well off his line leaving just a defender nearer the goal line) he was not in any way involved in active play. i.e. in the view of the ref (and most watching) he wasn't:
interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position

As for his disallowed goal, the header coming off a Liverpool player is irrelevant if Halls was offside 'at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team'. Obviously the moment Halls then connected with the ball he became involved in active play.

People frequently mention back passes etc. but I have yet to find anyone who can show me where this is specifically mentioned in the laws of the game (or decisions/guidance) relating to offside.

Incidentally I was running the line at one of my kids games on Sunday. As a shot came in from an opponent, one of his teammates was clearly stood in an offside position. However, in my view he was not involved in active play as he wasn't:
interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position

However, the moment the shot deflected off one of my son's teammates to the player in the offside position and he himself shot, my flag went up. The ref blew his whistle and disallowed the goal - much to the annoyance of the supporters of the other team.

Did I and the ref get it wrong?


For those who said yes:

Decisions of the International F.A. Board

Decision 2

..........The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:


Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

[Platypuss]

Indeed, I alluded to much the same earlier.

If paultheroyal really would have disallowed Halls' goal for offside then he needs to hang up his whistle pronto.

[Victor Meldrew]

A comment on the game-everybody (except I guess most of us fans who always wish for a good cup run) is happy.
Coppell is happy because we are out of the competition.
Torres is happy 'cos he scored 3.
Benitez is happy that his Reserves are still better than our Reserves.
Henry is happy to get a few minutes playing for the first team.
Those at the game and watching on TV saw an entertaining game with plenty of goals.
John Halls got to play for Reading even if it is the last time for the first team.

[brendywendy]

hang on a sec

i think liverpool only played three non 1st teamers didnt they?

and we only had three 1st teamers on the field for us

[Behindu]

If Shorey, DLC, Bikey, Duberry, Harper, Lita and Convey don;t qualify as 'first teamers' then the term has no meaning !!

All of them could legitimaly be picked as first choice in their position this Saturday, to say they are 'reserves' is spin !!

[brendywendy]

If Shorey, DLC, Bikey, Duberry, Harper, Lita and Convey don;t qualify as 'first teamers' then the term has no meaning !!

All of them could legitimaly be picked as first choice in their position this Saturday, to say they are 'reserves' is spin !!

i would imagine that 1st teamers meant players that would be in the 1st eleven given everyones fitness.

therefore id say harps, convey, and shorey are the true 1st teamers in there.

none of the others qualify

and id say that was a pretty fair, and accurate meaning for u.

[Scylla]

If Shorey, DLC, Bikey, Duberry, Harper, Lita and Convey don;t qualify as 'first teamers' then the term has no meaning !!

All of them could legitimaly be picked as first choice in their position this Saturday, to say they are 'reserves' is spin !!

i would imagine that 1st teamers meant players that would be in the 1st eleven given everyones fitness.

therefore id say harps, convey, and shorey are the true 1st teamers in there.

none of the others qualify

and id say that was a pretty fair, and accurate meaning for u.

The problem with your definition is that if you apply it to Liverpool under Benitez only Pepe Reina is a first team player.

Try turning it around: who wouldn't be in the team if everyone was fit (and the manager actually cared about the result). Three for Liverpool + Arbeloa at centre back? Six or seven for Reading? So perhaps I agree with your conclusion if not your definition.

However all this proves is that Liverpool have a big first team squad and rotate it?

[Behindu]

Sorry Bendy but I think your definition is meaningless to the point of being a waste of time !

No club has 11 'first team players', we certainly don't. Which one of Doyle, Lita and Kitson is not a first teamer ?

Football is at the very least a 14 man game these days and without checking I would think must clubs have a nucleus of around 16 players who form their 'first team' and probably play 20 or so games a season.

Non first teamers are those who don;t make the 16 and play just a handful of games in a season.

So Halls isn;t a first team player for us, Lita is.

That's how I see it !!

[brendywendy]

If Shorey, DLC, Bikey, Duberry, Harper, Lita and Convey don;t qualify as 'first teamers' then the term has no meaning !!

All of them could legitimaly be picked as first choice in their position this Saturday, to say they are 'reserves' is spin !!

i would imagine that 1st teamers meant players that would be in the 1st eleven given everyones fitness.

therefore id say harps, convey, and shorey are the true 1st teamers in there.

none of the others qualify

and id say that was a pretty fair, and accurate meaning for u.

The problem with your definition is that if you apply it to Liverpool under Benitez only Pepe Reina is a first team player.

Try turning it around: who wouldn't be in the team if everyone was fit (and the manager actually cared about the result). Three for Liverpool + Arbeloa at centre back? Six or seven for Reading? So perhaps I agree with your conclusion if not your definition.

However all this proves is that Liverpool have a big first team squad and rotate it?

Id say that (finnan) crouch sissoko torres and carragher are best in their positions at liverpool, but i take your point,s
i am pretty pointless

[Stranded]

If Shorey, DLC, Bikey, Duberry, Harper, Lita and Convey don;t qualify as 'first teamers' then the term has no meaning !!

All of them could legitimaly be picked as first choice in their position this Saturday, to say they are 'reserves' is spin !!

i would imagine that 1st teamers meant players that would be in the 1st eleven given everyones fitness.

therefore id say harps, convey, and shorey are the true 1st teamers in there.

none of the others qualify

and id say that was a pretty fair, and accurate meaning for u.

The problem with your definition is that if you apply it to Liverpool under Benitez only Pepe Reina is a first team player.

Try turning it around: who wouldn't be in the team if everyone was fit (and the manager actually cared about the result). Three for Liverpool + Arbeloa at centre back? Six or seven for Reading? So perhaps I agree with your conclusion if not your definition.

However all this proves is that Liverpool have a big first team squad and rotate it?

Article in The Sun today was doing a break down of ticket prices for the CC games Vs "1st teamers" playing.

It had Liverpool with 4 and us with 5.