ESPN graphics claim the ball didn't cross the line...

Jason Foster7 said:I guess those Black bomber players in the English squad must have fallen asleep in a tanning bed.🙄

Seriously though, how many Black players are actually on the US national team compared to how many French people are on the French squad?

Frenchmen and Englishmen are top-tier jokers, but that’s beside the point 😁
Even the English teams aren't lacking Black players...
As I recall: there was a movie recently, and they're all descendants of that one Black man Robin Hood brought back from Jerusalem 👋

tokic_ said:Who actually cares if the ball crossed the line or not? All that matters is the Cincinnati Reds made it to the finals.
🙂 😉 🎉 😍

You're clearly obsessed with the Reds.

*copyright by nostalgia_lover

Wait, what kind of computer tech is supposed to decide if it was a goal when you can't even see it on any of the replays? Honestly, it looked like a goal to me from the jump—and that last shot just proves it. Since William Gallas and the rest of the guys didn't even protest, I don't think there should be any massive controversy here. Though, anyone who wants to build a device that actually signals whether the ball crossed the line without making mistakes would just be told they're "killing the beautiful game."

It’s not even about killing the magic of the game anymore; it’s just getting way too expensive. If they’ve got the cash, fine, let them play like that, but not every club is going to be able to afford those kinds of balls or those types of goals.

honestly, these clubs are just constantly struggling to stay afloat, it's pretty pathetic how broke they are

It is what it is. Not everyone has a massive budget like Inter Milan or Chelsea FC.

nimblemarlin17 said:It’s not killing the magic of the game—it’s just too damn expensive. If they have the cash, fine, let them do it, but not every club can afford those kinds of balls and goal tech.

How much can it actually cost to put sensors in the goals? I mean, at the very least, they should do it for the World Cup—though honestly, I doubt even the big clubs in the top European leagues couldn't swing it. But look, it's just not realistic to expect refs to make the right call when we’re still arguing over whether it was a goal or not even after watching the replay.

Sure, maybe for the World Cup, but otherwise? No way. It wouldn't make sense to use it in a regular setting, but here we are.

nimblemarlin17 said:Sure, maybe for the World Cup, but otherwise? No. It wouldn't be fair to use them in some places but not others.

Regarding fairness: if you're going to use sensors in a league, you should either use them for every single game or none at all. That would actually be fair.

So, the call finally came in today—it wasn't a goal. We've got ourselves a finalist who hasn't found the back of the net in three straight games. Fantastic. 🙄

I highly doubt Chelsea will be looking for any way to overturn the result—they’ll just move on to next season. As for Liverpool, they really need to realize how lucky they were... and that's that.

Morgan Wright said:I don't buy that Chelsea is going to go crying about overturning results. They’re already looking toward next season. Meanwhile, Liverpool needs to realize they just got lucky. That's all there is to it.

Who even is talking about overturning results? That’s never happened and it isn't going to happen.

nimblemarlin17 said:Well, the verdict is finally in today—it wasn't a goal. So here we are, looking at a finalist who hasn't managed to find the back of the net in three straight games. Fantastic work, everyone! Cheers to that. 🙄

Who exactly "decided" this? Did The Sun call it? Or was it some official over at the Arena?

Honestly, though, who actually gives a damn...👋

nimblemarlin17 said:Finally, the verdict is in—it wasn't a goal. We've got ourselves a finalist who hasn't found the back of the net in three straight games. Cheers to that! 🙄

nimblemarlin17 in "A Man Against the World"

Look, it’s obvious you have a massive grudge against English football and English players, but you're really grasping at straws with that one goal.
The goal stands, and honestly, I don't give a damn whether it was legitimate or not.
Since switching to this knockout format, Liverpool FC has put up 9 goals and conceded only 3 in their last six matches.
That was more than enough to punch their ticket to the final.

Who exactly decided—and based on what—that wasn't a goal? Don't tell me it was some computer simulation again. The only way I'm buying that it wasn't a goal is if there's some new camera angle that actually shows something.

Even if it wasn't a goal—and looking at the replay, that seems highly unlikely anyway—we’re totally ignoring the fact that Chelsea would have spent 92 minutes playing shorthanded without Petr Čech in the net. They wouldn't have even been able to set up a defense because there's a massive chance Liverpool would have just buried a penalty. Honestly, if that had gone in, I bet we’d be looking at a 3-0 or 4-0 blowout for the home side, and all these pointless debates would have died right then and there.

Then everyone would just argue over whether it was a penalty or if he deserved a red card.
People would probably still be obsessing over what-ifs and "what about this" or "what about that"—you know the type 🙄—forever. 🙄

Brandon Castillo4~ said:Even if it wasn't a goal—though looking at the photo, that’s pretty unlikely—we have to remember that Chelsea would've been playing with ten men and without Petr Čech for 92 minutes. They wouldn't have even been able to defend because there's a massive chance Liverpool would've just scored a penalty. If that happened, I bet it ends 3-0 or 4-0 for the home side, and we wouldn't be having this pathetic debate right now.

Look, that's exactly the point. If the ref calls a foul instead of letting a non-existent goal slide, the whole game changes. Maybe Liverpool wins 5-0, maybe Chelsea holds on until the whistle. Saying "it doesn't matter if he called the goal or the penalty" can only come from an idiot or someone who has never watched a single game in their life. That ref screwed me over too, damn him, because I missed my parlay for $100 just because I picked "Liverpool vs Chelsea, red cards will be shown." If he'd called it, I'd be winning, but I can't stand these morons acting like "it's all the same." It isn't.

If he’d been playing with eleven men and sitting out on a red card, I doubt Chelsea would have even stood a chance. BUT::

I hear you, it's not the same thing, though I’m still sticking to my guns that the ball definitely crossed the line.
I’d love for you to explain the massive difference between these two images:

Look, I get it—you aren't exactly a fan of Liverpool FC and their run to the final, and honestly, I don't blame you. They haven't exactly been playing some perfect fantasy football up to this point, but let's be real here: why are these two images—the Comcast graphic and the ACTUAL photo—so wildly different? Why is William Gallas's foot shown at least 15 cm away from the line on the Comcast graphic, when in the REAL photo, it looks almost EXACTLY on the line (or at least way, way closer)?




You claim you've got two eyes... well, my two eyes (and hopefully they're working fine 😁) are telling me there is a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that the ball crossed that line.