What's all this MANutd. and Lille commotion about?

[maebach]

I saw the goal, and it was wrong or giggs to score when lille was setting up their defense. I dont think that goal should've been allowed. So now whats the fuss about? the goal counted and man utd are up 1-0

can someone explain?

[Peerzy]

It can be considered unsporting. Usually a member of the other team would stand right in front of the ball and not let Giggs kick the ball, or the Ref would say wait for my whistle and make sure the wall is 10 yards back, on this occasion neither happened, some refs would have given Giggs a yellow card and ordered him to retake the free kick and some would allow it.

It's a bit like what happened ages ago with Kanu against Sheffield United when he was suppose to kick the ball back to the other team as they had kicked it out so that someone could receive treatment and he ran down the line and assisted a goal, United players protested for 5 minutes or so and finished the game but it was replayed a few weeks later.

Basically it is considered a lot more sporting to have allowed Lille to prepare their wall, but in no way against the rules of the game.

[maebach]

I see, can someone explain the away goals rule? Bayern lost 3-2, but they were playing in madrid, so does the score balance to 3-3?

[Peerzy]

I see, can someone explain the away goals rule? Bayern lost 3-2, but they were playing in madrid, so does the score balance to 3-3?

No, away goals only come into contention if the scores are level over the two ties. For example if the second leg ends Bayern (Home) 2-1 Madrid (Away) then the score over two legs is 4-4, however Bayern go through as they scored more away goals.

Liverpool won 2-1 away to Barcelona tonight, if Barcelona win away 1-0 then the score over two legs is 2-2 but Liverpool have 2 away goals and Barcelona only 1 away goal, so Liverpool go through. So for Barcelona to go through they need to win 2-0, or 2-1 would take the tie to extra time as the score would be 3-3 with both teams having 2 away goals.

[maebach]

word, that means bayern's gotta win to go through

[Colt Seevers]

I saw the goal, and it was wrong or giggs to score when lille was setting up their defense. I dont think that goal should've been allowed. So now whats the fuss about? the goal counted and man utd are up 1-0

can someone explain?

The goal was fine I really don't see the controversy at all - if you know the rules..and the French players should know the rule you don't have to wait for ref's whistle... it's unusual yes for a goal like that to be conceeded, but if my own team let in a goal like that in, I would be more pissed with the defence not being up to speed and caught sleeping. :ermm:

I think I remember Thierry Henry (http://www.arsenal.com/player.asp?thisNav=first+team&plid=60089&clid=4421&cpid=703) bagging a similar goal against Wigan this season.

Oh and Lille are gonna get hammered by UEFA for going in a big girlie huff (http://football.guardian.co.uk/Match_Report/0,,2017782,00.html). ;) lol :yup:

[maebach]

Its a bit unsportsmanlike on man u's part. Its like picking on kids. Im sure if that happened to Man Utd. they'd be crying too.

PS, Im glad Celtic tied AC. Did you guys see that DIVE by Gilardino? OMG that was sooooo funny!

[Colt Seevers]

Its a bit unsportsmanlike on man u's part. Its like picking on kids. Im sure if that happened to Man Utd. they'd be crying too.

Err I'm sure they would. However I don't agree with it being unsporstman like Lille got done, by their own slow stupidity, and Man U's quick thinking Giggs capitalised on it. Tough shit cheese eating surrender monkeys, read the rules and sort your fucking defence out. Now diving, feigning injury, and time wasting, that's unsportsman like.

Maybe Lille wont be caught out so quickly when faced with a similar situation.

Oh and top tip to French Polis, when people are nearly being crushed to death, firing tear gas at them will not help the situation..... bawbags. :whistling

[Barbarossa]

I saw the goal, and it was wrong or giggs to score when lille was setting up their defense. I dont think that goal should've been allowed. So now whats the fuss about? the goal counted and man utd are up 1-0

can someone explain?

There was nothing wrong with the goal. If the wall is back the correct distance, and the attacking team is happy, and the referee is happy, there's no need to wait for the whistle.

On looking at the replays, it seems that even the wall was ready, the only guy who wasn't ready was the goalkeeper!

The behaviour of the Lille coaching staff was deplorable, they definitely tried to get the team to come off. Also, the interview afterwards with the manager was a disgrace. He basically said the referee was biased against them, and that if they'd done that to Man Utd, the goal would not have been allowed. I think that deserves severe punishment in itself.

As for the police, that was ridiculous overreaction to fire tear gas at fans in clear distress. They reckon the tear gas got to Van De Saar, and it affected his vision for the whole game. Crazy!

In fact, France is a disgrace, full stop. Lets just get rid of it.

[4play]

Apprently Giggs asked the ref if he could take it quickly. He said "yes" and as soon as he backed away from the ball the free kick is allowed to be taken as it was. Quick thinking rather than cheating if you read the rule book.

That ground looked like a right shit hole why was champions league football being played there in the first place is beyond me. Uefa really should look at who's bright idea it was to let man utd fans with tickets for the home section to walk into the away section causing a dangerous situation.

The police firing tear gas and pepper spray at a section of fans who are already having problems just screams incompetence. who ever decided that should be removed from ever dealing with crowds again.

uefa are talking of making changes to their rules of assesing a ground the day of the match to see if it is suitable for a match like this from the day of the match to 2 weeks prior. lets face it who wants to abandon a match like this especially if thousands of fans have travelled from another country on the day.

oh sir alex was right they tried to intimidate the ref by their so called moment of emotion. they should face a huge fine.

[Chip Monk]

Perfectly good goal.

If the Lille players had been watching they would have seen the referee walk backwards away from the ball. They would also have noticed that he was not making any signal for the attacking player to wait.

There's no difference between that and a free kick in the middle of the park. How often are quick ones taken there, most of the time in my opinion. They rarely have to wait for a whistle, unless the referee tells them to.

As to the aftermath, it was like watching a bunch of big weans.

[morphine]

Apprently Giggs asked the ref if he could take it quickly. He said "yes" and as soon as he backed away from the ball the free kick is allowed to be taken as it was. Quick thinking rather than cheating if you read the rule book.


So now the referee said yes to the quick free kick? That's even worse. He aproved the wall to be formed and then went "ok, if you want to shoot it now, regardless of the wall that i allowed being ready or not, do it". Why form a wall in the first place. As soon as the wall is at a regular distance just take a shot? It makes no sense to me.

Referees have instructions to let the defense set the wall properly and only allow the free kick to be taken after they whistle. I dont think the goal is ilegal but i think it should have been disallowed. It was a dangerous free kick, not a meaningless middle of the park foul.

I wonder if it was the other way around, if manchester utd fans wouldnt be complaining. I dont know if it was unsportsmanlike but it was a shame that it hapened. And to set the record straight, i dont care for any of the teams and i'm not french. It's just my point of view.

[Barbarossa]

So now the referee said yes to the quick free kick? That's even worse. He aproved the wall to be formed and then went "ok, if you want to shoot it now, regardless of the wall that i allowed being ready or not, do it". Why form a wall in the first place. As soon as the wall is at a regular distance just take a shot? It makes no sense to me.

Referees have instructions to let the defense set the wall properly and only allow the free kick to be taken after they whistle. I dont think the goal is ilegal but i think it should have been disallowed. It was a dangerous free kick, not a meaningless middle of the park foul.


No. Referees have a duty to make sure that the defenders are at least 10 yards away from the ball. There is nothing to say that the defence need to say when they are ready for the free kick to be taken. If they're not ready, that's their lookout.

It's the same for any set-piece.



On what grounds do you want to disallow the goal, if it's not illegal :blink:


If it had been the other way round, I'm sure the Man Utd fans and players would have screamed blue murder, but the goal would still stand.

[manker]

Goals like that are scored from free-kicks fairly regularly, I'm sure Thierry Henry has done it at least four times in the Premiership, including one this season. It is well within the rules and most people who watch and participate in the game know this.

In Holland (where the referee is from), the refs rarely whistle to indicate that a free-kick is allowed to be taken by the attacking team. To the ref, what Giggs thought he had to ask for is normal.

The problem is not the free-kick - it's what went before. I thought the ref was biased toward United the whole game, I remarked upon it at the time. Still fresh in the Lille players' minds was their disallowed goal, their winger barely touched Vidic but Vidic was unbalanced and made a meal of his fall - thus the referee disallowed it. What happened previous to the free-kick was why the Lille players were so incenced, any other comments by their players or staff is subterfuge.

Now, I would have screamed blue murder if United had a goal disallowed for such an inocuous challenge as the one on Vidic -- but I would think fair dos if we conceeded a free-kick after a ref had walked away from the ball and our wall wasn't ready.

The defence is culpable. Simple as that.

[morphine]

On what grounds do you want to disallow the goal, if it's not illegal :blink:


I've seen situations like this plenty of times. A player takes the free kick before the referee whistles and the goal is disallowed because of that. It hapens all the time. Who can say that it was illegal to take the free kick before the referee whistles? But goals are disallowed because of that anyway.

You said yourself that referees have a duty to make sure that the defenders are at least 10 yards away from the ball. After that it might be fair game but that doesnt stop goals from being disallowed. I think that if the referee acepts the wall being formed then he should only let the free kick to be taken after he whistles. We see them all the time pointing to the whistle. That should mean something.

[4play]

As soon as lille were 10 yards away the referee walked away which meant giggs could take it. Its not the refs responsibilty to make sure lille are ready to defend the free kick. the goal was in no way illegal so how could the ref disallow the goal.

youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypvt8N9NfuI&mode=related&search=)

The vidic push was a very harsh decision by the ref but he was right.

[Barbarossa]

We see them all the time pointing to the whistle. That should mean something.

We didn't see that this time. ;)

[4play]

seems that lille are blaming the overcrowding on lots of fake tickets. they claim united released the tickets too early allowing excellent copies to be made and sold. united say they released them a week before the match which is standard for them and that the tickets where of shite quality so they were easy to forge.

even though lille claim too many people where in the stand the chief of security claims the stand was not full and he reacted to the situtation. someone seems to be wrong here.

source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/europe/6386583.stm)

[Mr JP Fugley]

On what grounds do you want to disallow the goal, if it's not illegal :blink:


I've seen situations like this plenty of times. A player takes the free kick before the referee whistles and the goal is disallowed because of that. It hapens all the time. Who can say that it was illegal to take the free kick before the referee whistles? But goals are disallowed because of that anyway.

You said yourself that referees have a duty to make sure that the defenders are at least 10 yards away from the ball. After that it might be fair game but that doesnt stop goals from being disallowed. I think that if the referee acepts the wall being formed then he should only let the free kick to be taken after he whistles. We see them all the time pointing to the whistle. That should mean something.

The ref only need to blow the whistle for a free kick if he has told the attacking team to wait. He will indicate that to both sets of players. Whether it's near enough to score from is neither here nor there. The fact that he did not and walked away from the ball made it pretty obvious what was going to happen

If the defence is not ten yards away and the attacking side take the free kick that's their own problem.

It was a cracking good goal, well imagined and expertly executed. It's just a pity it was a diver who scored it.