Liverpool's First Goal

[Pretty Boy Lee]

All refs are pricks. 100%

[DoomMerchant]

All refs are pricks. 100%

i don't subscribe to that.

cheers

[saulman]

The goal wasn't in the spirit of the game, IMO.
If a City player had done that, I'd be embarrassed.

Interesting point, but, as much as I can't bear them, the Liverpool players simply capitalised on the other team's mistake.

Diving and using elbows is much worse (in terms of the spirit in which the game is played).

I prefer the game to be played in a sporting manner. Whether it's giving the ball back to the opposition when it's been kicked out, not trying to con the ref or incidents like this..... I just like players to play fairly.

If it had happened to West Ham, would you be so understanding?

[Ted Hughes]

I can't see anything wrong with the actions of the Liverpool players tbh. I constantly shout at City players to push the limits & be sharp with stuff like that whilst they scratch their arses & look at the sky. After actually stopping Sunderland from taking the kick in the 1st place, you would expect the ref to give them a break & the benefit of the doubt but as he wasn't even watching the game at that point...

[The Foggy Blue]

Goal.

Free was taken from correct place. Turner fucked up - he clearly thought the keeper was there behind him.

Sunderland have nothing to complain about.

[Lees Alter Ego]

The ref wasnt even looking at the ball. As if turner was trying to kick that back to the keeper. The goal should not have stood, end of

[Lev Bronstein]

I've watched replays of "that goal" a few times now. I think the ref ordered the retaking of the kick because the first was 10-15 yards away from the correct place. He points to the right place, ensures that ball is in the correct spot and then wanders upfield WITH HIS BACK TO BALL (mistake).

As for the kick itself - what was Turner doing? On the replays I saw you can see Torres looking round as if to check that the ball is in play and then takes it forward. The only question that the ref has to answer is "is there any reason I CAN'T allow the goal". And there wasn't.

You can't turn to the ref and say "I didn't like that free kick, can I have another go?".

Whether the ref would've allowed the goal had it gone the other way or if it was unsporting is irrelevant realy. The goal was legit. Bruce wants to stop moaning and tell his players to stay awake.

[Ted Hughes]

I've watched replays of "that goal" a few times now. I think the ref ordered the retaking of the kick because the first was 10-15 yards away from the correct place. He points to the right place, ensures that ball is in the correct spot and then wanders upfield WITH HIS BACK TO BALL (mistake).

As for the kick itself - what was Turner doing? On the replays I saw you can see Torres looking round as if to check that the ball is in play and then takes it forward. The only question that the ref has to answer is "is there any reason I CAN'T allow the goal". And there wasn't.

You can't turn to the ref and say "I didn't like that free kick, can I have another go?".

Whether the ref would've allowed the goal had it gone the other way or if it was unsporting is irrelevant realy. The goal was legit. Bruce wants to stop moaning and tell his players to stay awake.

Did he blow the whistle or indicate that the kick should be taken? If he did expect it to be taken, why wasn't he watching? Imo, the fact that he had his back to play gives him sufficient reason to re-take the kick.

[walmai]

The goal wasn't in the spirit of the game, IMO.
If a City player had done that, I'd be embarrassed.

Interesting point, but, as much as I can't bear them, the Liverpool players simply capitalised on the other team's mistake.

Diving and using elbows is much worse (in terms of the spirit in which the game is played).

I prefer the game to be played in a sporting manner. Whether it's giving the ball back to the opposition when it's been kicked out, not trying to con the ref or incidents like this..... I just like players to play fairly.

If it had happened to West Ham, would you be so understanding?

Naturally, I'd be pissed about giving away such a weak and plain daft goal... and I agree with your sentiment. Save to note that, if the Sunderland keeper was trying to ensure that they did the right thing, he should have just stood stock still with his hand in the air. His trying to save it muddies the water a bit.

But the game's not played to the Corinthian standard any longer. We've been on one end of it (you may recall Di Canio foregoing an open goal because he thought Everton's keeper was badly injured) and, boot on other foot, if we'd been in LFC's place this weekend and Spuds had done what Turner did, I would not be complaining if we'd scored the winning goal by it.

Indeed, I would be uproariously laughing about it.

[Lev Bronstein]

I've watched replays of "that goal" a few times now. I think the ref ordered the retaking of the kick because the first was 10-15 yards away from the correct place. He points to the right place, ensures that ball is in the correct spot and then wanders upfield WITH HIS BACK TO BALL (mistake).

As for the kick itself - what was Turner doing? On the replays I saw you can see Torres looking round as if to check that the ball is in play and then takes it forward. The only question that the ref has to answer is "is there any reason I CAN'T allow the goal". And there wasn't.

You can't turn to the ref and say "I didn't like that free kick, can I have another go?".

Whether the ref would've allowed the goal had it gone the other way or if it was unsporting is irrelevant realy. The goal was legit. Bruce wants to stop moaning and tell his players to stay awake.

Did he blow the whistle or indicate that the kick should be taken? If he did expect it to be taken, why wasn't he watching? Imo, the fact that he had his back to play gives him sufficient reason to re-take the kick.

Normally, if the ref wants the free kick taken when he blows a whistle he clearly signals this to the player. Otherwise, the player can take a quick free kick, especially if it's in midfield. As for the ref not seeing the action, this can happen loads of times, for example, in a crowded penalty area. I repeat, the question the ref has to ask himself is "has anything happened to disallow the goal?". There was no offside, nor any foul play so the ref had no choice but to let the goal stand.

I know it's a different sport, but a similar principle applies in Rugby. With the refs miked up you can clearly hear them ask the video ref "Is there ant reason I can't allow the try?"

[The Foggy Blue]

Refs only need to "indicate" that the free kick can be taken, and that's what Atwell did. They don't have to whistle. The ball was already in the right place so WHY was Turner moving it? Especially with his feet?

Turner's balls up. Liverpool's opportunism.

Fair goal. Shurrrrup Bruce, you wanker.

[DoomMerchant]

The goal wasn't in the spirit of the game, IMO.
If a City player had done that, I'd be embarrassed.

Interesting point, but, as much as I can't bear them, the Liverpool players simply capitalised on the other team's mistake.

Diving and using elbows is much worse (in terms of the spirit in which the game is played).

I prefer the game to be played in a sporting manner. Whether it's giving the ball back to the opposition when it's been kicked out, not trying to con the ref or incidents like this..... I just like players to play fairly.

If it had happened to West Ham, would you be so understanding?

Naturally, I'd be pissed about giving away such a weak and plain daft goal... and I agree with your sentiment. Save to note that, if the Sunderland keeper was trying to ensure that they did the right thing, he should have just stood stock still with his hand in the air. His trying to save it muddies the water a bit.

But the game's not played to the Corinthian standard any longer. We've been on one end of it (you may recall Di Canio foregoing an open goal because he thought Everton's keeper was badly injured) and, boot on other foot, if we'd been in LFC's place this weekend and Spuds had done what Turner did, I would not be complaining if we'd scored the winning goal by it.

Indeed, I would be uproariously laughing about it.

i agree with you that if the keeper had just stood there arms outstretched in confusion and disbelief while watching them put it in then maybe they get a chance for some recourse. A smarter keeper might have realized that though his instincts were right in trying to keep the ball out that he had no chance in hell of stopping the two players from scoring so he might as well surrender and see if he can get some common sense to prevail. However, his attempts to play the ball made it seem legit i'm sure.

i still don't believe Turner was taking the free kick. You see that move everyday when a quick kick is denied...a player kinda rolls it back towards where the ref has indicated it might be and then the keeper boots it. Not sure why this is confusing for everyone...to me it's really obvious, and the Scouse players played the ref. And the ball.

cheers

[Ted Hughes]

If it had been the other way round & the ref had turned his back on the kick & Sunderland had scored thus incurring the wrath of Gerrard & co he would have had the free kick re-taken, on the excuse that he wasn't ready. I'm absolutely convinced of that.

[DoomMerchant]

If it had been the other way round & the ref had turned his back on the kick & Sunderland had scored thus incurring the wrath of Gerrard & co he would have had the free kick re-taken, on the excuse that he wasn't ready. I'm absolutely convinced of that.

for sure. 100%. It's a travesty really. And it's something which can impact our season as well in several ways. i hate it.

cheers

[Grob]

Anything that turns the elephants man's mush bright crimson is alright with me

[Goataldo]

I'd be shocked if our players didn't react like that, and I'd gladly take the goal. And I'd be livid if any City player was that dozy to give the ball away.

Nothing wrong with it, Sunderland's own fault.

[zuricity]

What makes this situation worse , is the fact that Sunderland tried to play a quick free kick as is normal, but he pulled them up for taking it at the wrong place. Ordinarily the only time the team must wait for the whistle to be blown to start the game for a free kick, when they demand 10 yards for a free kick. However, in this instance the ref pulled them back for playing the ball from the wrong place and he did not then check that they placed the ball in the right spot to take the fre kick. You could argue he was giving 'pool a chance to get back even (which i won't). Unfortunately i haven't been able to find a statement as yet in the rules that explains this situation. Ie the ref pulling them back and making them take the free kick in the right spot ( and as a consequence the team must wait for him to blow his whistle to restart the game). I'm pretty sure it is required.

although as mentioned elsewhere, it's great to see the E man go all red in the face, it's even greater to see Liverpool in the bottom three and if they had lost I think that would have been the case !