Match Thread Manchester City(1) Vs Everton(2) - Capital One Cup - Semi Final 2nd Leg - Weds 27th Jan - 19:45 KO

[Old Blue 2]

No mate, he has a view that includes the space between the posts and six yard line, and he's looking right at the play. Yes, from 40 yards, but it's a bright yellow ball against a blue background and a white line on the pitch.

As for Atkinson, he can clearly see there the ball and the line.

As I have just said, from the high elevation of the still frame, yes. At pitch level, no...

 

[Bluesoulrebel]

As I have just said, from the high elevation of the still frame, yes. At pitch level, no...

Are you sure? Are you the linesman?

 

[Old Blue 2]

banno & Bluetoff,
Please understand that I am as committed an Evertonian as you both are, having followed them from the late-1950s.

I am as pissed off and furious as you both are about that decision for the second goal last night, upon seeing the replay evidence.

It's happened for a long time against us, however. I was at Maine Road in '77 when Clive (pass me my Liverpool shirt) Thomas disallowed Hamilton's goal. Crap decisions going against us. We have all seen similar happen over the years. This, for example, being one such occasion:

Kuyt was still on the pitch to score a penalty later. Yeah, that was the game when Carragher disembowelled Lescott in the 6 yard box in the last minute and Clattenberg said play on...

So, I suppose all we can do is bite the bullet and press on, and hope Man C can hammer the RS on final day. I really did believe that we could have taken them in the final, as their defence is potentially worse than ours...

 

[BlueToff]

As I have just said, from the high elevation of the still frame, yes. At pitch level, no...

But he is what, six foot? He's looking right at the incident. He has no obstruction, and he is half the distance that the lino is. I've not reffed, but i've played as a keeper and even I could see when something is clearly out on the touchline, if not the by-line,

There is no way that a ref as experienced as Atkinson (who has reffed in champions league and international tournaments) cannot see that from 19 yards away. No chance at all

 

[BlueToff]

banno & Bluetoff,
Please understand that I am as committed an Evertonian as you both are, having followed them from the late-1950s.

I am as pissed off and furious as you both are about that decision for the second goal last night, upon seeing the replay evidence.

It's happened for a long time against us, however. I was at Maine Road in '77 when Clive (pass me my Liverpool shirt) Thomas disallowed Hamilton's goal. Crap decisions going against us. We have all seen similar happen over the years. This, for example, being one such occasion:

Kuyt was still on the pitch to score a penalty later. Yeah, that was the game when Carragher disembowelled Lescott in the 6 yard box in the last minute and Clattenberg said play on...

So, I suppose all we can do is bite the bullet and press on, and hope Man C can hammer the RS on final day. I really did believe that we could have taken them in the final, as their defence is potentially worse than ours...

Look mate, I'm definitely not having a go at you. Debate is good and it's not meaning to be venomous in anyway.

End of the day, it is what it is. But, I can't agree with you in that Atkinson could not judge it correctly from his view-point.

Anyway, onwards and upwards!

 

[Old Blue 2]

Are you sure? Are you the linesman?

My point being that it is valueless forming a judgement from an elevated still frame.

And I have run the line enough times in times past to know what can and cannot be seen on the other side of the pitch (40+ yards away) by a linesman.

It's all very well being committed to the team, and disappointed by the turn of events (as I am), but you also have to consider individual events in a cold, objective, way. And some are not doing that. That's all.

 

[Old Blue 2]

But he is what, six foot? He's looking right at the incident. He has no obstruction, and he is half the distance that the lino is. I've not reffed, but i've played as a keeper and even I could see when something is clearly out on the touchline, if not the by-line,

There is no way that a ref as experienced as Atkinson (who has reffed in champions league and international tournaments) cannot see that from 19 yards away. No chance at all

What I would like to have seen, as we see sometimes on TV replays, is where the play is stopped and the camera angle then turns a certain way to get a better view of a situation. I think you know what I mean. If we were to see that Sterling situation from directly behind Atkinson (the direct view that he had), then I think we may all be better informed. Until then, we are all (myself included) pissing into the wind somewhat.

Still gutted we did not make the final...

 

[bluewally]

City had 19 attempts to 4 and hit the post twice. Yes they were awarded a goal that definitely should have been disallowed but they have a case in saying that Barkleys goal should have been disallowed also.

We weren't robbed by the officials we were never going to withstand their assault the way we set up, as in the same way we set up every match and with (it hurts to say this) Leon Osman as a passenger, cleverly on the pitch and our first choice RB warming the bench so stones could be shoe horned into the team.

 

[Bluesoulrebel]

My point being that it is valueless forming a judgement from an elevated still frame.

And I have run the line enough times in times past to know what can and cannot be seen on the other side of the pitch (40+ yards away) by a linesman.

It's all very well being committed to the team, and disappointed by the turn of events (as I am), but you also have to consider individual events in a cold, objective, way. And some are not doing that. That's all.

My point being " There's none so blind as those who will not see"

 

[BlueToff]

City had 19 attempts to 4 and hit the post twice. Yes they were awarded a goal that definitely should have been disallowed but they have a case in saying that Barkleys goal should have been disallowed also.

We weren't robbed by the officials we were never going to withstand their assault the way we set up, as in the same way we set up every match and with (it hurts to say this) Leon Osman as a passenger, cleverly on the pitch and our first choice RB warming the bench so stones could be shoe horned into the team.

But what did you expect!? They're a £500mil team playing at home and they needed to score three after we opened the scoring to get through. Of course they were gonna go for goal!

We created tons of chances against Swansea... does that mean we deserved to win? No.

We should have had a penalty, but again, not as aggrieved as it is subjective.

That clear-cut decision that was plainly a huge failure on behalf of the ref resulted in a defensive collapse of sorts, which City then capitalised on.

And no, Coleman wasn't fit. He didn't look fit against Swansea and he didn't when he came on last night. Martinez went with the defence that kept City out there two weeks ago - that's why Stones was picked.

Osman did well in the first half, if you think he was a passenger you can't have been watching the game. He was the one who got all of our counters started in the first half! He tired in the second and went off having put in a good shift.

And who else would you have put in instead of Cleverley? Risk McCarthy from the start when he obviously wasn't fit?

Once more, failure to see the facts to serve an opinion.

The thing RM got wrong last night was Kone coming on - it should have been Lennon. That was it, really, and even then, I understand the thought behind the change, even if I didn't agree with it.

 

[bluewally]

But what did you expect!? They're a £500mil team playing at home and they needed to score three after we opened the scoring to get through. Of course they were gonna go for goal!

We created tons of chances against Swansea... does that mean we deserved to win? No.

We should have had a penalty, but again, not as aggrieved as it is subjective.

That clear-cut decision that was plainly a huge failure on behalf of the ref resulted in a defensive collapse of sorts, which City then capitalised on.

And no, Coleman wasn't fit. He didn't look fit against Swansea and he didn't when he came on last night. Martinez went with the defence that kept City out there two weeks ago - that's why Stones was picked.

Osman did well in the first half, if you think he was a passenger you can't have been watching the game. He was the one who got all of our counters started in the first half! He tired in the second and went off having put in a good shift.

And who else would you have put in instead of Cleverley? Risk McCarthy from the start when he obviously wasn't fit?

Once more, failure to see the facts to serve an opinion.

The thing RM got wrong last night was Kone coming on - it should have been Lennon. That was it, really, and even then, I understand the thought behind the change, even if I didn't agree with it.

Calm down, you have your opinions I have mine. Your opinions aren't divinely fact.

Coleman looked fit when he came on. Do you have inside info? Martinez said both he an McCarthy were fit. I have to take his word over yours. Sorry

Stones got away with a penalty in the league game. Got caught out by Sterling because he's not a rb. The officials gave us a clean sheet that day.

Didn't think Osman did well. A couple of good passes i grant you. Class is permanent. Unfortunately he's too slow these days. Navas was brought on to exploit that.

At least we agree about Kone

 

[Stanley Parker]

We were also winning 3- 1, the man has no plan B.

It was a fantastic display of football from both teams.

The game was decided by a deflected shot and a goal allowed in error by the referee - once again.

Why should he have changed the way we were playing?

Perhaps he should change his lucky brown shoes.

 

[Stanley Parker]

.....in the circumstances I would've left him on. Tired or not he only needs a half yard to create a chance and creativity is what we needed.

Fair enough, but he had worked hard in both attack and defence.

We also needed fresh legs and help in defence.

 

[Stanley Parker]

....many referee decisions are subjective but where they aren't it's a no brainer that technology is used to ensure the correct outcome. I think this will also enhance the match experience for supporters. In 20 years time we will look back on these days and wonder why we ever left such decisions to on-field officials.

Technology can tell if the ball crosses the line between the posts.

Why can't it also tell if the ball crosses the line outside the posts?

 

[BlueStevie35]

Seen a tweet from Sky Sports saying Martinez was fuming about their dodgy goal.

I kid you not, one of the replies was from a West Ham fan saying "Yeah but he wasn't fuming when McCarthy purposefully injured Payet"*

*paraphrasing here but the general meaning is still the same.

They are still upset over that even though Payet is back playing for them, some I saw even think we deliberately injured De Bruyne