West Ham v Arsenal

[JimJams]

Ospina wasn't accountable for the goals though.

 

[Whitechapel]

Ospina wasn't accountable for the goals though.

Cech would have caught them one handed.

 

[G-Dragon]

G-Dragon, maybe you can make sense of something for me. Why would someone pick a short back up keeper (Ospina) Over a world class keeper (Cech) against a team that play stoke ball? The sort of game which is bread and butter for Cech.

I'm just lost. pacing around my house like a lost puppy trying to work this out.

Am I still #Wengerout?

Please advise.

Sure...you clearly forgot this.

 

[Whitechapel]

So still #wengerout?

 

[SALTIRE]

So still #wengerout?

Not for TY :

Claude owns him at the end of his own interview :

 

[claret50]

The final score should have been 4 - 2 if the officials had got it right, Lanzini had a perfectly legitimate goal disallowed even though he was onside, and Ozil was in an offside position for his goal, other than that it was an excellent entertaining game of football.

 

[JimJams]

I think the Ozil one was on actually. Initially it looked off and replays suggested it was too, but when the bods got to half time and slowed it reet down it looked level.

 

[Whitechapel]

The final score should have been 4 - 2 if the officials had got it right, Lanzini had a perfectly legitimate goal disallowed even though he was onside, and Ozil was in an offside position for his goal, other than that it was an excellent entertaining game of football.

If the officials had it right then your goalscorer shouldn't be on the pitch, his yellow should have been a red.

On that basis the score should have been 0-3.

 

[claret50]

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

 

[JimJams]

But Lanzinis would have counted...

 

[Munkiki]

Ah yeah... but does Lanzini's happen if Andy Carroll isn't on the pitch to connect with the cross before it falls to him? Does that cross even come in if West Ham are down to 10 men?

People who say things like "the score should have been x-x if the officials got it right" are daft. If Lanzini's goal stands, West Ham go 1-0 up and what happens next is a mystery. Once a decision is made, correct or not, the game changes. You can't post-game just pick and choose decisions to overturn and say everything else would've gone the exact same way.

 

[Whitechapel]

Ah yeah... but does Lanzini's happen if Andy Carroll isn't on the pitch to connect with the cross before it falls to him? Does that cross even come in if West Ham are down to 10 men?

People who say things like "the score should have been x-x if the officials got it right" are daft. If Lanzini's goal stands, West Ham go 1-0 up and what happens next is a mystery. Once a decision is made, correct or not, the game changes. You can't post-game just pick and choose decisions to overturn and say everything else would've gone the exact same way.

That post might not have happened had JimJams not posted first.

 

[JimJams]

Well you say that but that's not entirely the right way of thinking. If a team that has taken the lead in 20 games this season and has gone on to win all 20 opens the scoring in a match then it's fair to say that they'd likely have gone on to win the game. If they score and it's incorrectly ruled out then people are right to feel aggrieved and that they would have won the match based on their track record.

 

[JimJams]

That post might not have happened had JimJams not posted first.

You say that but that's not entirely the right way of thinking. If I hadn't have posted Munkiki may have made his post in relation to your post. If a poster makes 20 replies a season and every one is bollocks, you're probably me.

 

[Whitechapel]

You say that but that's not entirely the right way of thinking. If I hadn't have posted Munkiki may have made his post in relation to your post. If a poster makes 20 replies a season and every one is bollocks, you're probably me.

Postception.

 

[Munkiki]

Well you say that but that's not entirely the right way of thinking. If a team that has taken the lead in 20 games this season and has gone on to win all 20 opens the scoring in a match then it's fair to say that they'd likely have gone on to win the game. If they score and it's incorrectly ruled out then people are right to feel aggrieved and that they would have won the match based on their track record.

yeah but he didn't just say they could/should/would have won, he said the score should have been 4-2. It's not the same thing. You have every right to feel aggrieved by wrong/dodgy decisions (I feel the same way pretty much every week) and to think that you might've won had the decisions been right. I'm just saying you can't really manipulate the scoreline like that (certainly not for incidents that happen with plenty of the game left - I'll concede exceptions ie a last minute goal/penalty).

 

[claret50]

yeah but he didn't just say they could/should/would have won, he said the score should have been 4-2. It's not the same thing