Champions League tonight

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Nah, if we has genuinely injured (and I can't really see a reason to doubt Benitez on that) then why not throw some fresh legs on against defenders who have played 110mins+ of football?

Let's not forget that Babel did score....

[H. Pedersen]

All he had to do was hobble around the 6 yard box for 10 minutes.

Are we talking about Borgetti?

[ratbert]

Fredi Bobic more like...

[BWFC_Insane]

What was the Spanish clown doing taking off Torres and not bringing on a striker?

Babel is a striker, and pacy too, but he's no Torres. Benitez claims Torres had hamstring trouble, but it didn't seem like it...

Um yes but if Torres had to go off, anyone with a brain would have Crouch on straight away.

(For me had Crouch played with Torres from the start Liverpool would have won)

[TANGODANCER]

Was actually hoping for Blurred's views on the Torres thing. He didn't seem injured but why not throw Crouch out there as well as Babbel, indeed, as somebody commented, leave Torres on as well?. You're playing for a place in football's biggest club Champion prize, you're losing and he takes off the one man who could have made a difference. 3-1, 6-1, what difference? Chelsea were the better side, but what the hell, as a Liverpool flag stated, "Fortune favours the brave". I think Benitez has to take the can for this one.

Still not sure how Terry gets away with being a total thug when our KD gets a yellow a match for just being robust. Nailed on penalty for the Scousers, but then again, what was wrong with Chelsea's disallowed goal?

[screech powers]

to be honest i think that the linesman got it right disallowing the goal as Drogba was stood right in font of Riena , if it had stood and Chelsea won the game based on that decision , could you imagine the uproar!! Liverpool should definatly of had a penalty as well but Chelsea deserved it on the night.

[BWFC_Insane]

to be honest i think that the linesman got it right disallowing the goal as Drogba was stood right in font of Riena , if it had stood and Chelsea won the game based on that decision , could you imagine the uproar!! Liverpool should definatly of had a penalty as well but Chelsea deserved it on the night.

Um Jaidi deliberately stood offside to distract the keeper for Brum against Liverpool at the weekend.

That was OK but a player caught unintentionally offside yet not touching the ball is not?

[screech powers]

to be honest i think that the linesman got it right disallowing the goal as Drogba was stood right in font of Riena , if it had stood and Chelsea won the game based on that decision , could you imagine the uproar!! Liverpool should definatly of had a penalty as well but Chelsea deserved it on the night.

Um Jaidi deliberately stood offside to distract the keeper for Brum against Liverpool at the weekend.

That was OK but a player caught unintentionally offside yet not touching the ball is not?

]

Jaidi should have been offside with that according to the rules .... i think ... erm.. what are the rules??. As far as i understand it , your offside if your interfering with play , including impeding the sight of the goal keeper , in both situations that was the case , one was given , one was not. If Drogba had been jogging away from goal , that's not offside , its so bloody confusing.
Think thats the probelm with the rules regarding offside is that there clear as mud but thats for a whole other topic.

[perfan]

to be honest i think that the linesman got it right disallowing the goal as Drogba was stood right in font of Riena , if it had stood and Chelsea won the game based on that decision , could you imagine the uproar!! Liverpool should definatly of had a penalty as well but Chelsea deserved it on the night.

Um Jaidi deliberately stood offside to distract the keeper for Brum against Liverpool at the weekend.

That was OK but a player caught unintentionally offside yet not touching the ball is not?

]

Jaidi should have been offside with that according to the rules .... i think ... erm.. what are the rules??. As far as i understand it , your offside if your interfering with play , including impeding the sight of the goal keeper , in both situations that was the case , one was given , one was not. If Drogba had been jogging away from goal , that's not offside , its so bloody confusing.
Think thats the probelm with the rules regarding offside is that there clear as mud but thats for a whole other topic.

I don't think Jaidi was offside, as far as I know standing in the goalie's line of sight is not classed as being "active". It SHOULD be, don't get me wrong, but according to the new-fangled offside law it's not.

[BWFC_Insane]

to be honest i think that the linesman got it right disallowing the goal as Drogba was stood right in font of Riena , if it had stood and Chelsea won the game based on that decision , could you imagine the uproar!! Liverpool should definatly of had a penalty as well but Chelsea deserved it on the night.

Um Jaidi deliberately stood offside to distract the keeper for Brum against Liverpool at the weekend.

That was OK but a player caught unintentionally offside yet not touching the ball is not?

]

Jaidi should have been offside with that according to the rules .... i think ... erm.. what are the rules??. As far as i understand it , your offside if your interfering with play , including impeding the sight of the goal keeper , in both situations that was the case , one was given , one was not. If Drogba had been jogging away from goal , that's not offside , its so bloody confusing.
Think thats the probelm with the rules regarding offside is that there clear as mud but thats for a whole other topic.

I don't think Jaidi was offside, as far as I know standing in the goalie's line of sight is not classed as being "active". It SHOULD be, don't get me wrong, but according to the new-fangled offside law it's not.

The rules are you are only infringing if you are in an offside position and "directly interfering with another player". This has apparently been interpreted by referees as "physically interfering", so standing in front of a keeper and blocking his view is not interfering.

For me Essiens goal should have stood as the rules are currently interpreted (which I think is stupid).

[TANGODANCER]

We'll not er, forget Kev Nolan's permanent position fro free kick etc, shall we? Let's also look a couple of seasons back and remember where he stood then, blatantly offside in the real meaning of the term.

[CrazyHorse]

We'll not er, forget Kev Nolan's permanent position fro free kick etc, shall we? Let's also look a couple of seasons back and remember where he stood then, blatantly offside in the real meaning of the term.

Shhhh!

[blurred]

Well, can't say that they didn't deserve it, really. I thought we probably shaded the 90 mins of normal time, and coming towards the end we were looking like the only team that were likely to score, but they came out of the blocks in extra time with either a bit more desire, or a bit more energy or whatever you want to call it, and got what they deserved.

What was this nailed on penalty that we had denied? Not seen any of the game, or replays or owt, and I was pissed.

As for the Torres thing, I think it was just the last throw of the dice from Benitez - I'd find it hard to believe that he has or would lie about a player having an injury; Torres may well have reported some knack or other at full-time and so Benitez decided he wanted some fresh legs for the last 15 mins or so, and Babel is a player more likely to take on a tiring defence and try and beat a man. Let's also not forget the Babel did score after coming on, so it worked to at least some measure.

In a way I'm not too downbeat about last night - it avoids the hell of going to Moscow (and trying to afford it), and all the trouble that would no-doubt come out of that. Perhaps it's easy to be more philosophical about a semi-final defeat when a) the matches themselves come around pretty often, and b) we tend to win a hell of a lot more than we lose, but I think Chelsea were due to win a game.

Their fans, by the way, are absolute whoppers to a man, and a disgrace. Atmosphere? Don't make me laugh.

[Luna]

Thought I might stick this in here, obviously there's been loads of coverage of Pat Lampard dying, which is clearly very sad, but I've been dissapointed about how little this story has got.

[Lord Kangana]

...and C) Chelsea were far the better team on this occasion?

[blurred]

...and C) Chelsea were far the better team on this occasion?

I wouldn't say far better, but I have said they deserved it. Over the 180 minutes of normal time we were the better side, but they were better when it came down to the crunch in extra time, and so they progress. It's just one of those things.

[Tombwfc]

Thought I might stick this in here, obviously there's been loads of coverage of Pat Lampard dying, which is clearly very sad, but I've been dissapointed about how little this story has got.

Terrible story, but the fact is that as mother of Frank, husband of Frank Snr and related to 'Appy 'Arry and Jamie Redknapp, Pat Lampards death is more high profile and affects more people in football.

That said, had Kevin Doyle netted the winner against Wigan last week, it would've been mentioned a lot more.

[Lord Kangana]

...and C) Chelsea were far the better team on this occasion?

I wouldn't say far better, but I have said they deserved it. Over the 180 minutes of normal time we were the better side, but they were better when it came down to the crunch in extra time, and so they progress. It's just one of those things.

The 90 minutes at Anfield you were the better team, granted.

But Chelsea were the better team for 90 minutes at theirs. And trust me, if you'd asked a neutral (say like myself) who had spent more on their first team, I'd say it was glaringly obvious last night. You can either take that as a slight, or a viewpoint.

[H. Pedersen]

We'll not er, forget Kev Nolan's permanent position fro free kick etc, shall we? Let's also look a couple of seasons back and remember where he stood then, blatantly offside in the real meaning of the term.

But to my recollection he only does that on corners, where there is no offside. I don't think he's dumb enough to try it on free kicks. We're talking about Bolton here, linesmen aren't brave enough to make a controversial decision like that in our favor . . . unless we're already thumping a small team like Doncaster and it's irrelevant (ask Idan Tal).

Weirdest application of the offside rule I've ever seen was a Liverpool game where somebody played in Cisse, who was clearly offside. But he let it run through his legs, somebody else picked it up, and they scored. Evidently Cisse "didn't interfere with play" . . . good luck seeing that ruling for any team outside the Big 4. Anyone else see that?

[blurred]

That was Blackburn away last year - he ran towards a through ball, realised he was offside and pulled up just short of touching it, allowing whoever else it was running through to cross for Fowler (I think) to stick it in at the far post. Very odd decision.