NAMING RIGHTS THREAD: Liverpool really won't win the Premiership 2010-2011

This is an odd crusade.

haha i'm really not that bothered honest! but every time i see the replay and even the photos i just think goal, sorry

He doesn't have to be 100% xp! That is a Shearerism which has no place in our game until video replays eventually arrive - the only way officials can possibly operate is to blow according to what they think most likely happened. How else could it be?

well if rtc was an official, it wouldn't matter if there was replay, he'd had given the goal.

this is what i don't hear mentioned often, even with replay there will be human judgement and possible errors. people act as if it will solve everything and for every call ther will be only one option that is obviously correct.

sorry ik, i'm p sure that an official can't make a decison like calling a penalty or the chelsea 'goal' on a 'best guess' basis.

I will listen to chapter and verse on this, but 'can't give it unless certain' has been wheeled out by ex-refs like poll and winter iirc.

xps the ball isnt fully over the line. That's the rule.

This isn't a borderline call with replays

On the one viewing, it's tougher and i have sympathy for the cunt but the cunt would not have given that goal at the other end so the cunt is a cunt, the cunt

tbh the offside was less of a 'thing' for me, though again chalking it off at the other end of the pitch wouldn't have been such a big deal.

None of this absolves gomes, who's a lovely fella and makes amazing saves but really doesn't take his job half seriously enough for a gk.

But of course they must make decisions on a 'best guess' basis, otherwise they'd never be able to make marginal calls at all. Saying that making these calls is bigger than not making these calls is nothing more than favouring the status quo - we do appear to be built that way psychologically, but it's not a defensible way for making decisions in a game, where like it or not an instant decision has got to be made.

To put it another way, if the ball had been an inch over the line instead of an inch not, your argument still demands that the goal not be given - so far as I can tell, purely because giving a goal is doing something and playing on isn't.

yes, tbph

thats to yr final statement.

An official cannot be given the authority to invent something that didn't happen.

If you allow only the authority to act on certainty- to whatever degree of strictness you wish, perhaps- then i can at least begin to accept that you might miss out on calls that a human can't see at full speed ine one viewing, but at least everyone except utd and chelsea can be sure that an 'under pressure' (euphemism tbh) official can't just invent the call he needs.

shorter, less garbled, maybe- it's much easier to take someone not seeing something that has happened than it is to swallow someone telling you he saw something happen that didn't.

I'm sure I'm logically correct btw - but also equally sure that that isn't how things work in real life. There *is* a set of rules that aren't written down. Hence loads of tugging & pulling & other minor fouls are allowed in the box because a penalty's a big thing, and this kind of thinking about giving goals. In my mind second yellows used to benefit from similar thinking, but there's been a kind of zero tolerance in recent years which has eroded it a bit - except when van Persie kicks the ball away, or some moron takes his shirt off to celebrate.

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense I guess.

it's much easier to take someone not seeing something that has happened than it is to swallow someone telling you he saw something happen that didn't

That's interesting, because surely it amounts to the same thing in terms of whether the decision is the right one? Plus is the Mendes decision really more palatable than the Gomes one? I'd say not, because the Mendes one is just obviously, horribly, morally wronger and always will be.

Whereas Gomes looks like it'd be fair enough either way until you see the replay.

there are degrees, yes

But it's not the same thing to miss something as to claim to have seen something you couldn't have, that's a fairly fundamental difference i'd have thought? The former might involve deceit, the latter by definition must be deceit, justify it how you will

Depends what you mean by palatable, really. The Mendes decision was far more clearly wrong to those viewing on TV (miles over the line), but also far more difficult for the officials to see as the shot had come from about 50 yards out so they were nowhere near the goal. Whereas the Gomes decision was marginal and needed replays to work out what had happened. But the Mendes decision didn't really affect anything, iirc - United were miles behind Chelsea and only win would have kept a faint hope of catching them alive, Spurs were bumbling along in safety, but with little chance of breaking into the top four - a draw wasn't especially useful for either team, and a Spurs win wouldn't have that great for Spurs or any worse than a draw for United. Whereas Spurs'(s) defeat on Saturday has more or less guaranteed they won't be in the Champions League next season and kept Chelsea right in the title race.

(That was an xpost)
Darragh - He's not *claiming* to see something he didn't (as part of the sinister anti-Tottenham conspiracy of the Grand Lizard Men From The Planet Maldek), he's giving the decision based on what he *thought* happened. He thought the whole of the ball was across the line.

He's only claiming to have seen it if the rule is '100% certain' - I'm saying it isn't and it can't be. What's happened is the ref/linesman has thought he's seen it/drawn an inference based on what he can see (are these the same thing? for practical purposes I think they might be).

That's got to be the right and indeed only possible approach. Otherwise you've got a standard that noone employs to anything in real life. Knock on effects too - employ three players to block officials' view and set eight guys to work on Modric's ankles, and you're set.

think that three points at OT would have gotten us UEFA and would also have been jol's first win against big four, certainly his first away win.

Frankly, that's a hugely aggravatory line of argument. We'll take our earned points, thanks very much. The attitude that they matter more to utd is at least some of the reason that utd are a massive net beneficiary from official 'human error' imo

xp to darragh that was - I endorse nbs' second post obviously

xxxxxp or w/e

To be fair, I think most officials these days start signaling for a goal as soon as the ball begins to head towards Gomes.

http://twitter.com/#!/prodnose/status/64380743777918976

it's not an anti-tottenham conspiracy, it's a pro-utd/chelsea bias tbph

Frankly, that's a hugely aggravatory line of argument. We'll take our earned points, thanks very much. The attitude that they matter more to utd is at least some of the reason that utd are a massive net beneficiary from official 'human error' imo

Except you're responding to an argument nobody made. IK's question was whether the Mendes decision pissed you off more than the Gomes one, not whether the Mendes goal was more important from a United perspective than a Spurs one, and I was saying that the Gomes decision had a greater adverse effect on Spurs (and positive effect on Chelsea) than the Mendes decision did on Spurs and United respectively.

i'm still uncertain that there's not an explicit reference to certainty in a ref's decision on these things, tbh?

You can't ever be *certain* about anything, if you want to go far enough down that road.

lol fair enough nbs i've not slept for three days, am half titsed on painkillers and am reading from my phone

I'm still right though BOOM

xp you can be certain about something that's happened, within a fairly broad range, being serious.

You cannot ever be certain that something that hasn't happened ...has.

Or at leastit's 'less palatable'

That's really my pov on it

The real rankle us that *i'm* certain that the cunt doesn't make his 'reasonable human error' down our end, tbph

jesus. i think caek might be able to back me up on this but maybe not so i'll try the argument again. in a Crown Court, you can't be convicted of a crime if you're "probably" guilty. There is a line about "beyond a reasonable doubt". However guilty a juror might think a defendant is, they are not supposed to vote guilty unless they have no reasonable doubt that the defendant is. For a goal to be given, the officials have to believe that the ball crossed the line without a reasonable doubt. if they are uncertain, if they have any doubt, they should not award the goal.

Which is why the Mendes 'goal' wasn't given.

absolutely

NV: that's right - in a criminal trial, but that's not what we're dealing with here. In a civil trial the decision is made on a balance of probabilities. The only reason the standard is so high in criminal trials is to prevent miscarriages of justice - the community better be really sure of things to impose punishments. That's nothing like a football match. For it and everything else 'more likely' is enough.

But the laws of football call for the same standard as the laws of criminal trials iirc. Explicitly. Also in most sports the trend is that the advantage is given to the defender unless there is certainty that the attacker has scored/LBWed/whatever

A goal is scored when the whole of the ball passes over the goal line, between the goalposts and under the crossbar

Pretty sure that criminal standard thing is just plain wrong but we need caek in here and quickly. I don't think the laws of the game say anything at all about decisions are to be taken, they just set out the rules.

Hence scope for pundits to earn a living for years talking all sorts of made-up rubbish.

i can't find a FIFA directive on the interpretation Ismael but i still don't believe the law can be interpreted to include "probably"

'probably' *is* the interpretation though - the law is 'over the line', it's just a question of how you decide if it was or wasn't. I'm saying 'probably' is the only way that makes sense

certainty makes sense because awarding a goal is a big deal and because that's the case afaik certainty has traditionally been the yardstick

thank fuck the fan of a smaller team showed up tbph

i thought i was taking crazier pills than the pills i was taking

enjoying darragh's reversion to small club it's a conspiracy mode now spurs are on the slide.

lol i was waiting for that, and it took longer than i expected tbh

WE'RE ONLY A SMALL CLUB COS WE'RE NOT BEING LET GROW

hmm somehow i don't seem to have read the extended version of this argument and i don't have a pony in the particular case under discussion but i'm still certain that the interpretation has always been "don't award the goal unless you're certain" and that this is the best possible interpretation

^^^^

i'm only slagging darragh, but still...i'm just enjoying feeling optimistic, coupled with spurs fans early on this season acting like they were on the way to the title as we were about to get relegated.

which prob was how it may have seemed...

they will have known

Liverpool 5th is more or less a done deal now I think, the big ish is maintaining momentum next season?