Champions League Final Matchday Thread

[1finny]

I always want the English clubs to win.

As a side note I hate this opening ceremony nonsense.

What constitutes an English team?
owned by an American
managed by a German
2 English players in the team

or is it just simply clubs based in England regardless of ownership

“come on Amazon and Maccadees“

 

[chickenrunner]

Jurgon flopp?

The Floppster, of course. I salute you.

 

[Caesium137]

Jurgon flopp?

Turgid Plop?

 

[Zoophonic]

That’s harsh
Their goal this season was clearly the big 2 - The Carabau Cup and FA Cup.

worth noting they didn’t beat any of the top 4 in the league all season either

That’s true although they did beat Man City in the FA Cup Their only victory against a top 4 side all season (ignoring penalty shootouts).

 

[Jedi boro]

In the end Liverpool season turns out to be average. They needed penalties to win both cups as well

Where is the thread calling klopp a fraud? (Tongue in cheek, klopp is clearly a great manager)

Well he was known as the bridesmaid in Germany as he was always coming second to Bayern.

 

[Mfc79]

What constitutes an English team?
owned by an American
managed by a German
2 English players in the team

or is it just simply clubs based in England regardless of ownership

“come on Amazon and Maccadees“

Based in England and playing a huge role in the local community.

If Liverpool are not an English club then which nation do they belong?

 

[1finny]

Based in England and playing a huge role in the local community.

If Liverpool are not an English club then which nation do they belong?

Just like Macanese and Amazon then.
and, exactly what the Saudis up the road will do.

I was asking for an understanding why people think they are an English club
You have given your view - thanks.
I’m not bothered which (if any) any nation they are from. its irrelevant to me.


I know a few lads who are ‘English clubs’ at all cost.
They don’t do ‘British’ because of Celtic

All a bit nuanced for me.

 

[Scrote]

You seem weirdly invested in proving you ar right from your comments. Simply accept that people can disagree and you have one opinion and others have another. My humble opinion it was onside. Stating that the ball coming off the thigh accidentally seems to be your clincher but for me it was part of the action of the tackle coming in which was deliberate and therefore likely that that could happen. It’s not black And white.

I'm no more invested in being proved right than anyone arguing against my position on what is a football message board. I find it odd that people are willing to argue that black is white. Weird, perhaps.

I don't mind anyone having a different opinion. As you say yourself, in your own opinion the thigh contact wasn't accidental. However, once the rules are checked and it becomes clear that, given the current interpretation, it was accidental (or not deliberate) then your continuing to hold that opinion makes no sense. You've been given the correct interpretation and you continue to use your own.

You've even gone to the trouble (weirdly investing time) to find a tweet that backs your opinion but then you've failed to even read the attached image (or not understood what it's saying):



1. Fabhino went to play the ball when it was loose from the knee of Allison. He didn't make any further move to play the ball after Konaté plays it. So there was no conscious action to play the ball at that point.
2. Fabhino had no time between Konaté clearing and it hitting his thigh to consider his options and decide to thigh it in Benzema's direction.
3. Fabhino is sliding along the floor. He was in control going for the first loose ball with his right foot. He is no longer in control of his thigh after Konaté clears it. He has no time to move it out of the way.
4. There is possibly half-a-yard between Konaté's contact and Fabhino's thigh. Minimal distance and certainly no space.

If you go to the source of the image (or the source text for it) there is a clear explanation as to what the above means and this incident doesn't fit (my emphasis added):

As this was the last touch before Chapman received the ball, Chapman was correctly no longer judged to be either in an offside position nor gaining an advantage from being in an offside position.

The outcome would have been different had the ball hit Delamea and bounced or rebounded off him, in which case Chapman’s offside position at the moment the ball was played to him by his teammate would have been penalized. However, Delamea’s deliberate action negated Chapman’s offside position.

I'm happy to accept that none of this really matters. The goal was chalked off and Real Madrid won anyway. I find it strange that I'm singled out as the weirdo for defending my position when the only reason I'm defending it is that other people are investing as much time trying to refute it.

The law isn't crystal clear because there are always edge cases. However, this falls clearly in line with all the direction to the officials as being offside. I don't understand why there's even a discussion - outside of the fact that people are very reluctant to just say "I stand corrected".

 

[Scrote]

It isn't the touch by Fabinho that really matters here though, it's the touch by Konaté. Unless you think the touch on the ball by Konaté was a rebound or deflection (I don't, it clearly looks like a deliberate play to me) then Benzema can't be guilty of an offside offence.

The law says that, "A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, [...] is not considered to have gained an advantage" (i.e. is not guilty of an offside offence).

For me, Benzema receives the ball from a deliberate play by Konaté (via a rebound off Fabinho which is irrelevant in law) therefore there's no offside offence there.

But again, the wording is specifically "receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball". Whether Konaté plays it deliberately or not doesn't matter. Benzema doesn't recieve the ball from Konaté. He receives it from Fabinho. He is in an offside position at all times when Konaté and Fabinho touch it so the only consideration is the last touch.

“The interpretation of “deliberately” kicking a ball considers whether a player has intentionally tried to kick a ball. It does not consider whether the ball ends up where a player may have wanted to kick it.”

Fabhino plays the ball. He doesn't play the ball deliberately. Benzema is in an offside position at that point.

Nothing else matters.

 

[Scrote]

the law also says the ball mustn't have been deliberate played by an opponent in between times.

If you can find an official source for that, I'll stand corrected.

As far as I'm aware the law only states:

"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."