Pompey Post Match

[Vermilion]

going by the past 29 league games where rafa has set up exactly the same way ( defensive / negative 4-5-1 with 2 holding midfiled and no pace on wings ) then i say yes the best way to approach the manure game is to attack like we did against pompey. the performance was night and day compared with every other league game this season.

it was broke, it got fixed......why change back to the broke way??

It's really that simple..one game and it's fixed, because we attacked Portsmouth and won ?

[-V-]

[/B]

It's really that simple..one game and it's fixed, because we attacked Portsmouth and won ?

Is it really not plainly obvious? Rafa has got so much stick for picking such defensive, slow line-ups and for once he didnt and we won comfortably

[the rev leeroy brown]

[/B]

It's really that simple..one game and it's fixed, because we attacked Portsmouth and won ?

no, but like all things that get fixed you need to try it out to make sure. we were ****ing dire......seriously pish poor. changes were needed and made and low and behold we finally played really well ( against pompey or not ) and won. to me, that shows the problem was fixed ( remember thay spanked us with the old defensive formation last time )

so keep with it. dont go back to how it was before.

[Scratch]

Obviously scratch is on a windup here, but if you wanted to be technical, you could say that the target is obviously the goal and the post, being part of the goal, is therefore part of the target.

hmm - i'd disagree, the target is the area inside the posts - therefore hitting the post is off target.

Agree with PTP...shots on target are ones that would have gone in...if it's hitting the post and rebounding back in to play, then it wasn't on target.

Ah, i get it... your taking the piss......... arnt you?

[Chazza]

it looks worse on the slo mo

YouTube- Steven Gerrard elbows Michael Brown

Looks like it will be down to what the Ref says he has seen

Liverpool FC's Steven Gerrard set to face violent conduct probe

Steven Gerrard could face a three-match ban after the Football Association said that they would be looking into claims that he elbowed Michael Brown during Liverpool's 4-1 thrashing of Portsmouth last night.

The off-the-ball incident took place during the Premier League encounter, in full view of referee Stuart Atwell but the Reds captain escaped with only conceding a free kick after the Pompey midfielder was sent crashing to the ground.

Last week Gerrard, 29, was cleared of unsportsmanlike conduct after claims that he had made a V-sign at Andre Marriner during Liverpool's defeat to Wigan Athletic last Monday.

However, if found guilty of violent conduct, this latest incident would see Gerrard suspended for three games as Rafael Benitez's side continue to battle for fourth place. It is expected that the Gerrard could be forced to sit out his side's visit to Manchester United on Sunday

An FA spokesman said: "We need to establish what the referee gave the free-kick for.

Whether it was for an element of what he saw or whether it was for the entirety of what we have all seen since on TV.

"We will be working on this basis and gathering the referee's report."

http://www.clickliverpool.com/sport/...uct-probe.html

[dww]

I think it is probably worth distinguishing shots that hit the post from those that are strictly on target or off. That said if I were to go with the dichotomy the post is definitely off target.

[Scratch]

I think it is probably worth distinguishing shots that hit the post from those that are strictly on target or off. That said if I were to go with the dichotomy the post is definitely off target.

If it's on target, it's a goal. If it's off target, it's not a goal.

Now, you tell me, if a shot hits a post and rebounds into play, is it on target or off??

[dww]

If it's on target, it's a goal. If it's off target, it's not a goal.

Now, you tell me, if a shot hits a post and rebounds into play, is it on target or off??

I think you'll find most people refuse to accept the goal unless it crosses the line as well.

[squaddie]

This rivetting debate deserves its own thread.

[dww]

This rivetting debate deserves its own thread.

Don't tempt me.

[Scratch]

I think you'll find most people refuse to accept the goal unless it crosses the line as well.

This is true in most cases.

But regardless, for a shot to be classed as on target, it must meet the criteria that if there were no obstacles in the way, it would CROSS THE GOAL LINE (happy now?? )and result in a goal. Anything else would be off target.

[PTP]

just to be clear - where do we stand on goals scored that hit the post and then go in - i'm think it's a shot off target, thats deflected on target by an obstacle?

so therefore does this class as an own goal, or should it be disallowed unless, of course, in the rules, the posts are not defined as 'an outside agent interfering with play'

[Chazza]

Skysports saying 'FA to take no action against Steven Gerrard over clash with Michael Brown'

[squaddie]

Skysports saying 'FA to take no action against Steven Gerrard over clash with Michael Brown'

Good news.

[Scratch]

just to be clear - where do we stand on goals scored that hit the post and then go in - i'm think it's a shot off target, thats deflected on target by an obstacle?

so therefore does this class as an own goal, or should it be disallowed unless, of course, in the rules, the posts are not defined as 'an outside agent interfering with play'

On target in my mind. The goal post are part of the field of play, so if it hits the post and goes in, it was on target, if it rebounds back into play, it was off target...Torres didn't use the cylindrical nature of the post properly. He needs to spend a little bit more time in the physics lab study his angles of refraction, and then know that with a bit more curl, the ball would have hit the post at a more acute angle and nestle in the back of the net. Amatuer, that Torres, complete amateur.