0% Villa: Liverpool's goal today

[lovejoy]

I disagree with the sportsmanship argument. To me "sportsmanship" doesn't come into it because what happened was not against the laws of the game.

The next thing I want to see stopped is this nonsense of putting the ball out of play for an injury and/or giving the ball back to the opposition.

If circumstances present you with an opportunity to take advantage of the oppositions misfortune, then I think a team should take it

There are thousands of things within the laws of the game but which are bad sportsmanship. i think you are over simplifying it. Part of the problem is, and I do not intend to be racist here but culturally in Spain and Italy there's an attitude that if you can be sneaky and get away with something this is a good thing. We have many non English players in our league now so its no suprise this attitude has embedded itself in our football.
As a balance English football has always had a more physical aspect which is why Gerrard can get away with what he can. Anywhere else its thatincident we'd be talking about.

[Smithy]

Why is no-one criticising Michael Turner?  He'd been told to move the free-kick back ten yards after someone tried to take it early, and the ref was happy with where it was - did he not think the next touch could constitute the kick being taken?  Why not?

Schoolboy defending that was punished appropriately.

[mshurst]

Why is no-one criticising Michael Turner?  He'd been told to move the free-kick back ten yards after someone tried to take it early, and the ref was happy with where it was - did he not think the next touch could constitute the kick being taken?  Why not?

Schoolboy defending that was punished appropriately.

I agree with this comment. It's not the ref's fault, it's the players. The ref had indicated where the kick was to be taken, and he then moved away from the ball. He didn't take his eyes off the player at all. When he saw the ball being kicked he ran back as soon as the ball was in play.

All this bollocks about unsporting conduct, or Torres being unsportsmanlike is shite. He did what any player would have done. The ball had been played and kicked. Which, to any clever player, means that the ball is in play.

Sunderland's Mike Turner is to blame. Not the ref. Not the linesman.

It was a stupid decision by the defender to kick it, especially after the ref had made such a point as to where it needs to be taken from. Moving it from that spot essentially means that the ball is in play.

Nuff said. Well played Liverpool.

[jeff]

The ref clearly showed where he wanted the kick taken from. He was obviously happy with the location the ball was in as he was moving away to get into position anticipating the freekick would go up the field.
Its not Micheal Turners decsion to change the location of the freekick so what was he doing?
The goal was legal and I dont buy the bad sportsmanship angle It was just quick thinking by Torres and Kuyt. If your gonna go down that path the goal milner scored last season from the quick throw was poor sportsmanship.

[Bad English]

I thought Emile's header was fantastic! And let's not forget that great cross from Warnock. The manager should be proud of them. Well done!

[olaftab]

I thought Emile's header was fantastic! And let's not forget that great cross from Warnock. The manager should be proud of them. Well done!

Very good. Yes it was a Liverpool goal.

[tim]

Why is no-one criticising Michael Turner?  He'd been told to move the free-kick back ten yards after someone tried to take it early, and the ref was happy with where it was - did he not think the next touch could constitute the kick being taken?  Why not?

Schoolboy defending that was punished appropriately.

Yep he has no-one to blame but himself.
They were awarded a free kick.
He kicked it. That's that.

[lovejoy]

I thought Emile's header was fantastic! And let's not forget that great cross from Warnock. The manager should be proud of them. Well done!

Very good. Yes it was a Liverpool goal.

Shouldn't Heskey have been shagging a 16 year old then punched a barman while Warnock was having his car knicked at the same time Ashley got the ball while the goalie was trying to take a goal kick for it to be a real Liverpool goal?

[richard moore]

Why is no-one criticising Michael Turner?  He'd been told to move the free-kick back ten yards after someone tried to take it early, and the ref was happy with where it was - did he not think the next touch could constitute the kick being taken?  Why not?

Schoolboy defending that was punished appropriately.

I agree with this comment. It's not the ref's fault, it's the players. The ref had indicated where the kick was to be taken, and he then moved away from the ball. He didn't take his eyes off the player at all. When he saw the ball being kicked he ran back as soon as the ball was in play.

All this bollocks about unsporting conduct, or Torres being unsportsmanlike is shite. He did what any player would have done. The ball had been played and kicked. Which, to any clever player, means that the ball is in play.

Sunderland's Mike Turner is to blame. Not the ref. Not the linesman.

It was a stupid decision by the defender to kick it, especially after the ref had made such a point as to where it needs to be taken from. Moving it from that spot essentially means that the ball is in play.

Nuff said. Well played Liverpool.

Regrettably, I have come round to agreeing with this point of view as I think it is technically correct, much as I loathe the bindippers

[davevillan]

This is a situation where those who know and understand the laws, will understand why it was a goal, and those who dont, dont understand why it was!
A goal can only be disallowed for an infringement of the Laws of the game. Once Turner kicked the ball backwards, wether that was his intention or not is irrelevent, under the Laws of the game, the ball is in play. No Liverpool then infringed the Laws, therefore the goal has to stand.
As other posters have stated, the fault lies solely with Turner.
There is no fault attache to Attwell, he did nothing wrong, and he was 100% correct!

[Pete3206]

There's only one thing for it. Bring back Shoot magazine.

[curiousorange]

It's karma for the beachball incident.

[peter w]

Absolutely it was a perfectly good goal. Once the referee had pulled the quick free kick back and it was stationary the referee moved away indicating he was happy for the game to re-start. At no point is the referee obliged to blow for the game to start and very rarely do in these examples as its easier to let the game flow if the attacking side want to take a quick free kick to re-start the game.

Turner tried to hit it back to the keeper with his back heel and underhit it. You could see it in the way his leg went around his standing leg that he was off balance when striking the ball causing it to be underhit. By doing that it showed he was trying to hit it harder back to the keeper.

I think that in itself is proof enough that he wasn't simply rolling it back a few yards for the keeper to take the kick. When else have you seen a defender, or any player, risking tapping the ball over some yardage for someone else to take a free-kick, even if he had meant to roll it back to the keeper? Which I doubt.

Why would he kick it back to the keeper anyway? They had already tried a quick free-kick so anted to get on with the game and why not then leave it for the keeper to take from where it was considering the ref was happy with where the ball was, otherwise he would have blown and insisted the ball be moved back.

Whichever way you look at it Turner took a risk and it backfired. There was absolutely nothing wromg with the goal. Even if he had meant to knock it back he underhit it and thus play resumed. Liverpool took advantage whilst Sunderland dithered,

[villa1]

A fair goal in my opinion and absolutely nothing to do with bad sportsmanship. They just took advantage of a stupid mistake. I actually think he took the free kick but was too casual and underhit it. He quickly realised his mistame and tried to claim he hadn't. Get that impression from his body language just prior to kicking it.

I hate Liverpool too!

[Arsey]

I completely disagree that it should have stood.

After a foul has been committed, play can resume without the whistle been blown as a quick free kick can be taken.  Sunderland tried to do this, the ref felt it wasn't taken from the correct spot so blew again for the free kick to be taken again.  Play can now not resume until he blows his whistle again.  Turner kicked the ball back to the keeper before he blew his whistle again.  Secondly, Turner kicked it from almost the exact same position as the original free kick; so if the ref blew for that reason the first time, he should not have allowed the kick to be taken from the near identical spot the second time around.