[Lawrencio]

I really don't understand the rules of football, i thought that goal should be allowed(you should all know which goal i am talking about). But lucky for us that the referee disallowed it.. phew~~~
what the hell was Westerveld thinking anyway, that was a bloody stupid move!! luckily it didn't cost us the match!!! Hutchison was so close and Westerveld should not have kicked into the player... man~~~~ what was he thinking?

anyway, 0-0 is not very good, this has given a chance for Arsenal to catch up, Liverpool is in danger of losing CL spot!

 

[xax]

can u tell me what happened!???
i just heard everton had a last minute goal dissalowed!
but can ya gimme more info on th whole match!?
thanx!

 

[Gid]

As a red who was at the match I think the ref. took the easy way out. Even so I'm sure the goal would have been disallowed for Hutch. being too close.

A draw's not a bad result as long as we do not get beat at Chelsea and win the last three games, we'll finish second.

 

[pool_till_I_die]

xax - there was a fee kick for the pool just out side their box for offside. It was in stopage time so Westerveld wanted to launch one last attack so tried to hump it up-field straight away. Unfortunately he hit it straight against Hutch who was walking back to the centre of the field. He was about 3 yards away and the ball went in to the net but the ref blew up. The ref said he blew for time but on the replay it showed that he blew the whistle just as the ball was going to go in to the net.
The argument for Hutch was that he was not facing the ball at the time. In an earlier free-kick Fowler took a quick free kick when Everton players were less than ten yards away and the ref allowed it.

I think that the goal should have been dissalowed as Hutch DELIBARATELY walked in front of the path of the ball. He looked back twice to see that he was doing so. Just because he was not looking doesn't mean anything. Could he have stood in front of the ball and turned around and walked slowly away and got away with it. i think not.

 

[AMOROSO!]

I think the key of the whole case was that Hutch was too close.There are rules about this thing and Hutch as Pool said wasnt there by mistake.

------------------
The sun will rise again...and it will be...GIALLOBLU!

 

[xax]

i heard that smith said there were 2mins xtra time ..but the ref blew the whistle after 91 secs!

is there gonna be an investigation1?/

 

[M]

Lets clear this up once and for all so that rumours will cease.

The rules of football are simple. When a free kick is taken opposing players may not be within 10 yards of the football. If a player is within 10 yards then the team taking the free kick gains the advantage rule.

So lets look at the situation. Westerveld took the free kick which hit the opposing player. The opposing player was within 10 yards and so this is an infringement of the rules. As Liverpool received no advantage the referee quite rightly blew the whistle.

Some laughable comments I have heard over this are;

"The referee blew his whistle for full time."
- No, he didn't.

"The player had his back to the ball"
- So? Are people making a new rule? It doesnt matter if the player is unconscious, hes still within 10 yards.

"Westerveld shouldn't have taken it"
- Why not? He wasn't doing anything wrong!

"Why did Westerveld take it then, he knew the risk?" - eh? What risk? The player was within 10 yards, he is entitled to take the free kick if he wants.

Looking at the above this will explain why Fowler was allowed to take the free kick. The answer is because LFC received the advantage.

There, now lets get on with other stuff and if anyone tries to wind you up about this just politely ask them to purchase a copy of fooball rules.

 

[jooso]

I just love the Toffees !
Liverpool has a better team but when you play against Everton you just can't win.
Can U ?

 

[pool_till_I_die]

Just to say that the refs excuse was that he blew up for time - officially

 

[Sabry]

Excuse my ignorance guys but I have to make some comments...First I tottaly agree with Mr. M on everything he said but I disagree with his last sentence, M, this does not need a football rules book, it needs common sense...

What do you mean people that Hutch was there delibrately ? Guys this does not make sense ! I mean do you think he knew the pool keeper will not wait for him to go far away and that the ball is going to hit his back with this typical strength and angle to wind up in the back of the net ??? Impossible !! Then like M said why didnt the keeper wait for him ?????? He cant possibly have meant a goal, unless the pool keeper and Hutch were cooking up something together which is still impossible to believe right ????? There was nothing wrong with this play, but if there was then the ref should have stopped the game because Hutch was too close not because the time is over, it would have been more professional and less suspicious... But clearly he somehow got confused and tried to save himslef but his reflex wasnt that good, its clear from his face impressions after the game that he was nervous...

Anyways before I get the mocking posts I have to tell you in England I like Arsenal and Liverpool, however truth and fairness comes before anything ...

 

[Sabry]

One last thing, even if the time is over he should have allowed the goal, why do you think all refs end the game when the keeper has just took the Goal kick and the ball is in the air in the centre of the field ?? Because non of the teams can claim they had an advantage for scoring right ?

 

[Lawrencio]

may be Westerveld was thinking of passing the ball to Berger, that's why he chose that direction where Hutch was standing and miss-kicked right into Hutch.... But the goal shouldn't be allowed. YEah!!!

 

[M]

Actually 'pool-till-I-die' is right - he did blow for full time and not the 10 yards rule so I admit I'm wrong. I'll also admit it should have been a goal then (although he hadn't gone 10 yards), but it wasn't so tough [email protected] Everton. Looks like were going to finish above you again.

 

[pool_till_I_die]

The thing is that if Sander had stopped then Hutch would have been wrong for wasting time. People get booked for that type of thing. He walked deliberately in front of the ball and then walked SLOWLY away. He was trying to waste time.

 

[Sabry]

Listen if its anyones fault then its the refs, he should have blown the whistle for many reasons like pool said (wasting time, not 10 yards back e.t.c.) but since he did not then he shouldnt complicate stuff by taking such a stupid decision... He clearly blew for the time but why when the ball was heading for the net ? He could have been more professional, I watched the replay more than 20 times and I saw the ref blowing the whistle at least 5 seconds after the ball hit his back and was already heading for the net, so he clearly knew it was going to be a goal..

Anyways who care, Everton wouldnt have won the EPL if the ref had approved of the goal. Its only a match and a goal.

 

[xax]

who was the ref anyway!???

ppfff..sorry to say this buti think westerfeld is sometimes being stupid!!!
i mean why take such a risk!??

ok on his site he says ":
i didn't take any risks since i knew the ref would dissallow it!

but if the ref blew for the time...
then he could not have been so right ,oculd he!???

 

[pool_till_I_die]

Don't hold me to this but I think it was Graham Poll.