foolsgold Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 They were, seeing as how he wasn't given offside.Do we have any sort of official timeframe on this btw? How long before can something happen before it becomes irrelevant to a disputed incident? This was obviously very short but it doesn't really make much of a difference No they weren't at all . The offside means the goal is unjustified, regardless of what happened after. They were not turned down a justified goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMT Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Yes, but he has no right to rage if he is happy to accept a WRONG decision being given to allow his team to score, if he's happy to accept officials making errors to benefit his team, then he needs to shut the hell up if it doesn't go for him. He's basically just being a hypocrite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMT Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 No, it's not okay that they got the offside wrong. Ultimately, the right decision was given BUT, in the game, the offside was not given, correct decision or not. According to the game, they were denied a perfectly good goal. By that argument then they weren't denied a good goal as it wasn't given, if you're saying "according to the game" it wasn't offside, then "according to the game" it's not a goal either, you can't have it both ways. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leppard Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 By that argument then they weren't denied a good goal as it wasn't given, if you're saying "according to the game" it wasn't offside, then "according to the game" it's not a goal either, you can't have it both ways. If it was given, they wouldn't have been denied it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icelander83 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Yes, but he has no right to rage if he is happy to accept a WRONG decision being given to allow his team to score, if he's happy to accept officials making errors to benefit his team, then he needs to shut the hell up if it doesn't go for him. He's basically just being a hypocrite. No way? Someone in football being a hypocrite? I swear some people are being deliberately obtuse. I'm sure you'd all just be sitting there grinning like a cat with cream if you were in the same position or if the situation happened the other way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 no we wouldnt, but we would be wrong, it shouldnt have been a goal, whichever way you spin it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMT Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I swear some people are being deliberately obtuse. Football fans being deliberately obtuse, no way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machetero Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 No way? Someone in football being a hypocrite?I swear some people are being deliberately obtuse. I'm sure you'd all just be sitting there grinning like a cat with cream if you were in the same position or if the situation happened the other way. Thanks, Icelander) Though I think it's time just to go on with Euro. People here are running back and forth arguing whether there was a goal/offside, or not. But in the end of the day in Kiev most people and all the pundits on the TV media group I work for (we official EURO 2012 broadcasters here) agree that you (a team) should play so good that no referee may affect your results. We didn't play that well yesterday (Blokhind said the same today). Life goes on and we'll be fighting in World Cup quals. soon. P.S. Here everybody is already waiting for new Ukr. championship season and continuation of Kiev-Donetsk football war) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriss Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I thought the Ukrainians accepted defeat gracefully tbh, in spite of that controversy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redshift Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 It was offside. The goal should not have been given. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Blokhin doesn't have a leg to stand on moaning about the decision, his team got exactly what they deserved, nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
football_master_94 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 blokhin doesn't have a leg to stand on moaning about the decision, his team got exactly what they deserved, nothing. Really? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astafjevs Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Haha. Must have been watching another game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bell Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Perhaps he means over the course of the 3 games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 They didn't deserve to go through, they scored 2 goals in three games and were utterly toothless during the whole group stage. Being good on the ball in the middle third against a team who don't value possession isn't anything to write home about. If they'd started Shevchenko he might have provided some magic up front for them but no team that has Artem Milevskiy leading the line is going to strike fear into anyone. They managed one decent chance to our two clear cut ones in 90 minutes despite having 60% of the possession, they got out of jail against Sweden through some Sheva heroics and they got humped by France. England have so far have taken their chances, they might not create many but they still put them away. Ukraine managed to have the unenviable combination of having nobody to consistently provide a cutting edge and nobody to put away the half chances. If you can't score you can't win games and quite frankly if you're conceeding goals as cheap as the one they gave to England they don't deserve to. Say what you like, we had 2 decent chances and score one, they had one decent chance and scored none. The fact the coach left out his best player and only attacking threat in a must win match makes his hysterics all the more laughable, if he wanted a reason to cry he should have looked at himself. The team that created 20 chances and can't score doesn't deserve anything against a team who only create one and score it. Unfortunately for Ukraine they did neither. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty_ACE Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 As a Ukrainian I'm of course disappointed (though slightly) that the goal wasn't given. However, at the same time, Ukraine really didn't do anything of note to warrant them a pass to the quarterfinal. It was quite clear (at least to me) that the team has the wrong mentality, way too negative, and their approach to the game showed that. They reminded me of how teams played 20 years ago. It seems that any notion of modern football was lost on them. I'm especially surprised that this is what Blokhin decided to employ considering the type of team he played in himself as a player. The Dynamo Kyiv team he played in has a dynamic style and unfortunately that didn't seem to rub off on him. In all honesty, whether the goal was allowed or not, I don't think it would have changed the final result or the overall play of the team. I'm much more disappointed that the team showed so little aside from the game against Sweden. Simply too much fear and negativity. Congrats to England though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skybluedave Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I think we had 3 good chance tbh. Ashley Cole's chance in the 2nd half was a decent chance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
football_master_94 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Say what you like, we had 2 decent chances and score one, they had one decent chance and scored none. The had two clear-cut chances and two decent efforts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machetero Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 In all honesty, whether the goal was allowed or not, I don't think it would have changed the final result or the overall play of the team. I'm much more disappointed that the team showed so little aside from the game against Sweden. Simply too much fear and negativity. Congrats to England though. I'd say the game against England was the best so far. It was game against Sweden, that was full of fear negativity (naturally, as a starting group game for the team. With England Blokhin finally removed some veterans (Voronin, Nazarenko, Shevchenko. not quite fit Mikhalik) and brought in younger guys (Rakitskiy, Garmash, Butko). What we lack is a two-three young speedy forwards in National team squad and this will be sorted out within a year. In World CUp qualifications we will play: Shovkovskiy or one of the young keepers - Selin,Khacheridi,Rakitskiy (Mikhalik),Butko - Yarmolenko- Garmash - Bezus(Konoplianka) -Stepanenko - Gusev - Selezniov (Devic/Milevsky/ Kravets/etc). We just need younger guy to enter national team from U-21 (Shakhov, Bezus, Kryvtsov, Koval, Kaverin, Bogdanov) and U-19 teams (Churko, Tashy, Budovsky). We lost and some the last opponents will keep bragging how bad a 60% possession team can be. This autumn we'll see where we are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nørbæk Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Once again, this just shows how ridiculous the seeding system is. The fact that the host nation (nations in this case) are seeded first is just crazy. Especially when we have two host nations that normally wouldn't even qualify. Both Poland and Ukraine out despite having the advantage of the seeding system. Look at the level of the group A teams (average FIFA ranking of 29.25, Poland obviously suffering due to the lack of competitive matches, but still) compared to, for instance, group B (average FIFA ranking of 6.5), or any other group for that matter. I say, (a) seed the host nation according to its level and (b) never allow co-hosts unless both teams are ranked fairly high (top 15-20-ish). However, taking the ridiculous expansion to 24 teams into account, point (b) might be less important. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 They should just do away with seeding in the first place. Having groups like Germany, Denmark, Poland and Netherlands is brilliant - and normally would never be allowed if it weren't for an odd quirk of the seeding system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 The had two clear-cut chances and two decent efforts 40 yard shots from your leftback aren't "decent chances". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbert_o154 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 They should just do away with seeding in the first place.Having groups like Germany, Denmark, Poland and Netherlands is brilliant - and normally would never be allowed if it weren't for an odd quirk of the seeding system. What is that quirk? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razzler Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I think it was always going to be Ukraine's best game, do or die, final group game, want to get through so were always going to be up for it, you'd think Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nørbæk Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 They should just do away with seeding in the first place.Having groups like Germany, Denmark, Poland and Netherlands is brilliant - and normally would never be allowed if it weren't for an odd quirk of the seeding system. Surely, you mean Portugal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Surely, you mean Portugal? I did indeed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
football_master_94 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 40 yard shots from your leftback aren't "decent chances".I clearly wasn't referring to that.Their clear cut chances were 1. Milevskiy's missed header (free header at that) from 5 yards out 2. Ghost goal Decent chances I was mentioning 1. Yarmolenko's effort in the first half, when he cut inside past Cole inside the box and had a shot 2. The Konoplyanka swerving effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I clearly wasn't referring to that.Their clear cut chances were 1. Milevskiy's missed header (free header at that) from 5 yards out 2. Ghost goal Decent chances I was mentioning 1. Yarmolenko's effort in the first half, when he cut inside past Cole inside the box and had a shot 2. The Konoplyanka swerving effort. Ghost goal? You mean the offside one? That's not a clear cut chance it's validity as a chance is the same as picking it up with your hands and running it into the net Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
football_master_94 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Ghost goal? You mean the offside one? That's not a clear cut chance it's validity as a chance is the same as picking it up with your hands and running it into the net The fact that the lino made an incorrect call (ie. to allow play to go on) is irrelevant as it was deemed legit by the refs, and therefore goes down as a clear cut chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 The fact that the lino made an incorrect call (ie. to allow play to go on) is irrelevant as it was deemed legit by the refs, and therefore goes down as a clear cut chance. no... no it doesn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakers Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 The fact that the lino made an incorrect call (ie. to allow play to go on) is irrelevant as it was deemed legit by the refs, and therefore goes down as a clear cut chance. It shouldn't. The passage of play could not have related in a goal being correctly given. Ergo, the end result was correct, even if achieved through incorrect means. You can't say "well it's ok they got one part wrong, but it should have been given because they also got another part wrong." A bit like its wrong to say that technology should only be brought in for goal lines - it shouldn't, it should be used for anything that results in a goal being given / ruled out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 no, fm94 is right, it was a chance as the offside wasnt awarded, if it had been scored, it would have counted, it shouldnt have, but thats a different argument Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham_aka_stam Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 All the official stats will record that as a chance saved off the line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 They couldn't create the chance without breaking the laws of the game to do it, just because the officials missed it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Would you call Frances goal against Ireland a clear cut chance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 They couldn't create the chance without breaking the laws of the game to do it, just because the officials missed it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Would you call Frances goal against Ireland a clear cut chance? we know that , but the law that was broken wasnt spotted, it was a chance and if the "goal" had been awarded, it would have counted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 we know that , but the law that was broken wasnt spotted, it was a chance and if the "goal" had been awarded, it would have counted So you would count Frances "goal" against Ireland as a clear cut chance? Sorry but if you can't create it without following the rules then it isn't a chance. Looking at it in the context of what Ukraine "deserved" there is no other way to think about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 well yh, frances goal was a clear cut chance, it shouldnt have been, but it was Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 well yh, frances goal was a clear cut chance, it shouldnt have been, but it was So France deserved the attempt on goal? Alright then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cms186 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 where did i say that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 where did i say that? Read the conversations through. I said that Ukraine didn't deserve anything because they only created one clear cut chance. fm94 disagreed and justified that by saying they created two, one of which was the "ghost goal". You are agreeing with his belief that Ukraine "deserved" something because they managed to create a "chance" by breaks the laws of the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
football_master_94 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Just to clarify, I was disagreeing with the notion that they didn't 'deserve' something from the England game, not the notion that they didn't 'deserve' to go through (which ultimately they didn't, based on that poor showing vs France) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddidiodion Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Which is fair enough, I can see why you'd think that even though I personally disagree. What I can't understand is using the ghost goal as justification, the goal by Rooney in the Champions League final for instance, it was offside. I wouldn't count that as a legitimate chance, he stuck it away well but it doesn't change the fact it shouldn't have counted and we couldn't score within the rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.