Chelsea first goal

Also as pointed out the ball hit player on floor who was offside! So goal should not have been given on that basis. Double wammy!

If you want to go down that road, before the offside offence was commited Gary Medel took out Samuel Etoo quite balatently. If the goal didnt stand it would have been a penalty and a red card. Highlights below....

http://www.ibtimes.com/video-chelsea-4- ... in-1432934


Thats the second time Medel has got away with flying in with a foul in the box.

& before that Eto'o committed a foul on Marshall....

Also as pointed out the ball hit player on floor who was offside! So goal should not have been given on that basis. Double wammy!

If you want to go down that road, before the offside offence was commited Gary Medel took out Samuel Etoo quite balatently. If the goal didnt stand it would have been a penalty and a red card. Highlights below....

http://www.ibtimes.com/video-chelsea-4- ... in-1432934


Thats the second time Medel has got away with flying in with a foul in the box.

& before that Eto'o committed a foul on Marshall....

Which wasn't given. I can see no other option the ref has but a pen and a red card if Hazard missed.

Why we are still discussing a goal that everyone knows should have been disallowed is beyond me. However when the decision wasnt given it was certainly a good thing from your point of view that hazard tucked it away otherwise Medel would have been in deep trouble and you may well have lost by a bigger margin than 4-1.

Also as pointed out the ball hit player on floor who was offside! So goal should not have been given on that basis. Double wammy!

If you want to go down that road, before the offside offence was commited Gary Medel took out Samuel Etoo quite balatently. If the goal didnt stand it would have been a penalty and a red card. Highlights below....

http://www.ibtimes.com/video-chelsea-4- ... in-1432934


Thats the second time Medel has got away with flying in with a foul in the box.

& before that Eto'o committed a foul on Marshall....

Which wasn't given. I can see no other option the ref has but a pen and a red card if Hazard missed.

Why we are still discussing a goal that everyone knows should have been disallowed is beyond me. However when the decision wasnt given it was certainly a good thing from your point of view that hazard tucked it away otherwise Medel would have been in deep trouble and you may well have lost by a bigger margin than 4-1.

You're judgment is being clouded now by your anti-Cardiff bitterness. Quite clearly Marshall is fouled. If that didn't happen, then the eto'o 'foul' doesn't happen. It's irrelevant.

Bitterness? What?

Ive said from the outset it should have been disallowed. However once it was waved on, then its lucky hazard scored otherwise Medel would have been off and facing a pen.

How is that anything other than common sense?

Bitterness? What?

Ive said from the outset it should have been disallowed. However once it was waved on, then its lucky hazard scored otherwise Medel would have been off and facing a pen.

How is that anything other than common sense?

Because you are finding little things to back up your argument, justifying in your head why the goal would have been a goal anyway. Medel catches him slightly, not enough to warrant a penalty in my opinion. Eto'o makes the most of it. The referee also sees it that way otherwise he would have blown up, even though hazard scores. I've seen them pulled back for serious fouls like you are suggesting.

Bitterness? What?

Ive said from the outset it should have been disallowed. However once it was waved on, then its lucky hazard scored otherwise Medel would have been off and facing a pen.

How is that anything other than common sense?

Because you are finding little things to back up your argument, justifying in your head why the goal would have been a goal anyway. Medel catches him slightly, not enough to warrant a penalty in my opinion. Eto'o makes the most of it. The referee also sees it that way otherwise he would have blown up, even though hazard scores. I've seen them pulled back for serious fouls like you are suggesting.

Whaaaaaat?

1) you have completely misunderstood what im saying. IT SHOULD NOT have been a goal. The keeper is allowed to bounce the ball. HOWEVER, once it wasnt given then its a good thing Hazard tucked it away because.... My point 2....

2) "slightly touched him". If Hazard missed there is no doubt in my mind Medel would have his marching orders, he completely and utterly smashed him the referee correctly awaited to see the result of the lllay as it fell to hazard to slot into an empty net.

This is all common sense i dont understand why there is even an attempt to make an argument out of it.

Bitterness? What?

Ive said from the outset it should have been disallowed. However once it was waved on, then its lucky hazard scored otherwise Medel would have been off and facing a pen.

How is that anything other than common sense?

Because you are finding little things to back up your argument, justifying in your head why the goal would have been a goal anyway. Medel catches him slightly, not enough to warrant a penalty in my opinion. Eto'o makes the most of it. The referee also sees it that way otherwise he would have blown up, even though hazard scores. I've seen them pulled back for serious fouls like you are suggesting.

Whaaaaaat?

1) you have completely misunderstood what im saying. IT SHOULD NOT have been a goal. The keeper is allowed to bounce the ball. HOWEVER, once it wasnt given then its a good thing Hazard tucked it away because.... My point 2....

2) "slightly touched him". If Hazard missed there is no doubt in my mind Medel would have his marching orders, he completely and utterly smashed him the referee correctly awaited to see the result of the lllay as it fell to hazard to slot into an empty net.

This is all common sense i dont understand why there is even an attempt to make an argument out of it.

Well if it's common sense, then why is medel even brought into the argument. Common sense is that it isn't relevant.

Because the comment "etoo was offside" was brought into it.

I said, if you want to go down that road then the offside offence (which im not even sure it was) wouldnt have even come into it as the Medel foul happened prior to it.

The goal was wrongly given, we all accept this. I dont understand the need to continue it. Just be glad that in the midst of a refereeing calamity it didnt result in Medel being sent off and a heavier defeat.

Did I just read Roathie admitting he was wrong? Remarkable scenes.

Did I just read Roathie admitting he was wrong? Remarkable scenes.

Absolutely. Never have a problem admitting when i get something wrong, luckily for me its a rarity

Read the rules you tool. The goal shouldn't have stood.

You don't appear to have commented on point 1

I will comment on point 1. When MOTD freezed the point Marshall caught the ball, Marshall's feet were clearly a yard outside the box. However, Marshall was leaning backwards and when you look at it again, you have to say that you cannot state for definite that all of the ball was outside the box when Marshall grasped the ball and therefore, you have to say Marshall was just in the box when collecting the ball.

Also as pointed out the ball hit player on floor who was offside! So goal should not have been given on that basis. Double wammy!

If you want to go down that road, before the offside offence was commited Gary Medel took out Samuel Etoo quite balatently. If the goal didnt stand it would have been a penalty and a red card. Highlights below....

http://www.ibtimes.com/video-chelsea-4- ... in-1432934


Thats the second time Medel has got away with flying in with a foul in the box.

Since when has a shoulder barge been a foul? A shoulder barge is a fair challenge!

Didnt realise he had shoulders on his feet

Never should have been given. Marshall bounced the ball and was therefore in control so it was a foul. Also the ball hit Eto on the way in who was offside too.

As for some saying you don't get any luck with refs, did you not see the nailed on pen for the foul on Baines against Everton. Swings and roundabouts as they say.

Nailed on Blaine's was half way down before he was tackled ,so don't talk bollocks just for the sake if it

Didnt realise he had shoulders on his feet

Shoulders on his feet? Medel ran across and shoulder barged Eto'o, there was no contact with Medel's feet. It was shoulder to shoulder which is a fair challenge.

Never should have been given. Marshall bounced the ball and was therefore in control so it was a foul. Also the ball hit Eto on the way in who was offside too.

As for some saying you don't get any luck with refs, did you not see the nailed on pen for the foul on Baines against Everton. Swings and roundabouts as they say.

Nailed on Blaine's was half way down before he was tackled ,so don't talk bollocks just for the sake if it

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aTm3RP-rTW ... Tm3RP-rTWI

nailed on butt.

Didnt realise he had shoulders on his feet

Shoulders on his feet? Medel ran across and shoulder barged Eto'o, there was no contact with Medel's feet. It was shoulder to shoulder which is a fair challenge.

Im not seeing any shoulders involved at all. Etoo is about to slot in and Medel throws himself at him from behind completely flooring him. After slowing it down first contact seems to be made around etoos waist by medels legs, it was an awfully timed lunge.

However on the shoulder barging is legal issue, its not. Shoulder to shoulder contact is generally ignored unless excessive force is used. However you cant go barging people from behind using your shoulder to floor them.

Roathie don't want to disagree with a jack on here but if Marshall wasn't fouled none of this would matter, it was a foul and shouldn't have been allowed to stand. What ever happened after that was irrelevant.

Didnt realise he had shoulders on his feet

Shoulders on his feet? Medel ran across and shoulder barged Eto'o, there was no contact with Medel's feet. It was shoulder to shoulder which is a fair challenge.

Im not seeing any shoulders involved at all. Etoo is about to slot in and Medel throws himself at him from behind completely flooring him. After slowing it down first contact seems to be made around etoos waist by medels legs, it was an awfully timed lunge.

However on the shoulder barging is legal issue, its not. Shoulder to shoulder contact is generally ignored unless excessive force is used. However you cant go barging people from behind using your shoulder to floor them.

Why are you still going on about It? I thought you said earlier it was irrelevant. Hypocrite

Also as pointed out the ball hit player on floor who was offside! So goal should not have been given on that basis. Double wammy!

If you want to go down that road, before the offside offence was commited Gary Medel took out Samuel Etoo quite balatently. If the goal didnt stand it would have been a penalty and a red card. Highlights below....

http://www.ibtimes.com/video-chelsea-4- ... in-1432934


Thats the second time Medel has got away with flying in with a foul in the box.

Since when has a shoulder barge been a foul? A shoulder barge is a fair challenge!

well roathy you are talking hyperphetically now as who is to say if ref would have given foul? both incidents I highlighted are factual! in regards to laws of game! and that challenge is open to interpretation by referee, so whos to say he would have said penalty? seen lots not given so have you!

Didnt realise he had shoulders on his feet

Shoulders on his feet? Medel ran across and shoulder barged Eto'o, there was no contact with Medel's feet. It was shoulder to shoulder which is a fair challenge.

Im not seeing any shoulders involved at all. Etoo is about to slot in and Medel throws himself at him from behind completely flooring him. After slowing it down first contact seems to be made around etoos waist by medels legs, it was an awfully timed lunge.

However on the shoulder barging is legal issue, its not. Shoulder to shoulder contact is generally ignored unless excessive force is used. However you cant go barging people from behind using your shoulder to floor them.

Why are you still going on about It? I thought you said earlier it was irrelevant. Hypocrite

Im answering not asking. Im not going to ignore someone directly talking to me.

Stop getting your sour knickers in a twist.

Didnt realise he had shoulders on his feet

Shoulders on his feet? Medel ran across and shoulder barged Eto'o, there was no contact with Medel's feet. It was shoulder to shoulder which is a fair challenge.

Im not seeing any shoulders involved at all. Etoo is about to slot in and Medel throws himself at him from behind completely flooring him. After slowing it down first contact seems to be made around etoos waist by medels legs, it was an awfully timed lunge.

However on the shoulder barging is legal issue, its not. Shoulder to shoulder contact is generally ignored unless excessive force is used. However you cant go barging people from behind using your shoulder to floor them.

So you start off saying Medel made contact with his legs, then finish by saying he can't go barging people with his shoulder?

Also as pointed out the ball hit player on floor who was offside! So goal should not have been given on that basis. Double wammy!

If you want to go down that road, before the offside offence was commited Gary Medel took out Samuel Etoo quite balatently. If the goal didnt stand it would have been a penalty and a red card. Highlights below....

http://www.ibtimes.com/video-chelsea-4- ... in-1432934


Thats the second time Medel has got away with flying in with a foul in the box.

Since when has a shoulder barge been a foul? A shoulder barge is a fair challenge!

well roathy you are talking hyperphetically now as who is to say if ref would have given foul? both incidents I highlighted are factual! in regards to laws of game! and that challenge is open to interpretation by referee, so whos to say he would have said penalty? seen lots not given so have you!

No they arent.

Etoo kicking the ball from marshall was a foul, missed by the ref. Medel fouling Etoo was even more obvious, we dont know if he would have blown up. Etoo being offside is debatable and he didnt give it.

All 3 are open to interpretation.

Didnt realise he had shoulders on his feet

Shoulders on his feet? Medel ran across and shoulder barged Eto'o, there was no contact with Medel's feet. It was shoulder to shoulder which is a fair challenge.

Im not seeing any shoulders involved at all. Etoo is about to slot in and Medel throws himself at him from behind completely flooring him. After slowing it down first contact seems to be made around etoos waist by medels legs, it was an awfully timed lunge.

However on the shoulder barging is legal issue, its not. Shoulder to shoulder contact is generally ignored unless excessive force is used. However you cant go barging people from behind using your shoulder to floor them.

Why are you still going on about It? I thought you said earlier it was irrelevant. Hypocrite

Im answering not asking. Im not going to ignore someone directly talking to me.

Stop getting your sour knickers in a twist.

how noble of you sir. Just pointing out what you was saying earlier, nothing to be sour about. It's my teams forum

Didnt realise he had shoulders on his feet

Shoulders on his feet? Medel ran across and shoulder barged Eto'o, there was no contact with Medel's feet. It was shoulder to shoulder which is a fair challenge.

Im not seeing any shoulders involved at all. Etoo is about to slot in and Medel throws himself at him from behind completely flooring him. After slowing it down first contact seems to be made around etoos waist by medels legs, it was an awfully timed lunge.

However on the shoulder barging is legal issue, its not. Shoulder to shoulder contact is generally ignored unless excessive force is used. However you cant go barging people from behind using your shoulder to floor them.

Why are you still going on about It? I thought you said earlier it was irrelevant. Hypocrite

Im answering not asking. Im not going to ignore someone directly talking to me.

Stop getting your sour knickers in a twist.

how noble of you sir. Just pointing out what you was saying earlier, nothing to be sour about. It's my teams forum

And I stand by it. Its irrelevant, cant help people asking me stuff.

Well you do seem a little sour.

Didnt realise he had shoulders on his feet

Shoulders on his feet? Medel ran across and shoulder barged Eto'o, there was no contact with Medel's feet. It was shoulder to shoulder which is a fair challenge.

Im not seeing any shoulders involved at all. Etoo is about to slot in and Medel throws himself at him from behind completely flooring him. After slowing it down first contact seems to be made around etoos waist by medels legs, it was an awfully timed lunge.

However on the shoulder barging is legal issue, its not. Shoulder to shoulder contact is generally ignored unless excessive force is used. However you cant go barging people from behind using your shoulder to floor them.

Why are you still going on about It? I thought you said earlier it was irrelevant. Hypocrite

Im answering not asking. Im not going to ignore someone directly talking to me.

Stop getting your sour knickers in a twist.

how noble of you sir. Just pointing out what you was saying earlier, nothing to be sour about. It's my teams forum

And I stand by it. Its irrelevant, cant help people asking me stuff.

Well you do seem a little sour.

No not at all, just saying what I see

Then you see me fielding questions and not being contradictory by starting the debate again

Then you see me fielding questions and not being contradictory by starting the debate again

I just wouldn't waste my time speaking about something that was irrelevant, going into detail about it. Makes no sense to me.

Then you see me fielding questions and not being contradictory by starting the debate again

I just wouldn't waste my time speaking about something that was irrelevant, going into detail about it. Makes no sense to me.

Always happy to discuss a topic, whether i see a point to it is irrelevant.

Its clearly pointless, we all know it was a wrongfully allowed goal. But if people ask me stuff or reference me, i will answer.

Two points about this goal
1 - Marshall should not have been on the field at the time of the goal as he handled deliberately outside the area (automatic red card)
2 - ball was clearly out of Marshall's hands when Eto'o made contact with it - therefore a goal
STOP BLEATING

This is football not rugby, so it doesn't matter where his feet are, just where the ball is. As Marshall is off balance and leaning back when he catches the ball he moves his feet back to regain his balance. His feet were over the line but the ball wasn't and that is all that matters.