Let me ask the Refs or potential Refs on the site a question

[Tilla]

And to make my point as you seem to have missed them from both examples I gave. The referees can only call the game how they see it at the point in time. They at this moment do not have the benefit of instant replays, and things happen in only a fleeting moment. They have to see, analyze and make the call and get it right. A lot of times they will get it right, but more likely, there are times they will get it wrong or totally miss the incident.

So the system is not perfect, but we have to live with it until the rules are changed and they decide to start use technology to address the shortcomings. While we wait for that to happen, we hope for the best for our sides and know that you will win some calls just as much as you will lose some.

[Paul Marin]

And to make my point as you seem to have missed them from both examples I gave. The referees can only call the game how they see it at the point in time. They at this moment do not have the benefit of instant replays, and things happen in only a fleeting moment. They have to see, analyze and make the call and get it right. A lot of times they will get it right, but more likely, there are times they will get it wrong or totally miss the incident.

So the system is not perfect, but we have to live with it until the rules are changed and they decide to start use technology to address the shortcomings. While we wait for that to happen, we hope for the best for our sides and know that you will win some calls just as much as you will lose some.

Dude, suppose a player hug up the ball in two hands, runs down the field, throws it in the goal with his hands and the ref awards a goal, would that have been a right call? Of course not!! That's the point! We all know he has the final say, but just because he interpreted a call the way "he saw it" doesn't mean he was correct. It's REALLY REALLY simple.

[Tilla]

Dude, suppose a player hug up the ball in two hands, runs down the field, throws it in the goal with his hands and the ref awards a goal, would that have been a right call? Of course not!! That's the point! We all know he has the final say, but just because he interpreted a call the way "he saw it" doesn't mean he was correct. It's REALLY REALLY simple.

And where did I say the referee made the correct call? BTW, you couldn't choose a worse analogy to use to explain your point.

Anyway Paul, it is what it is. Live with it as you do when you celebrate the Liverpool victories and draws when the same errors are made in other games that benefit your team. As I said, sometimes it will work in your favor, sometimes it wont. That is just how it set

[Paul Marin]

And where did I say the referee made the correct call? BTW, you couldn't choose a worse analogy to use to explain your point.

Anyway Paul, it is what it is. Live with it as you do when you celebrate the Liverpool victories and draws when the same errors are made in other games that benefit your team. As I said, sometimes it will work in your favor, sometimes it wont. That is just how it set

[Peter R]

Tilla, I actually agree with Karl here . You either believe that Etoo fouled someone (in the box) or you don't...regardless of whether the person fouled had the ball.

My question regarding the law was to clarify whether or not the person fouled had to be in possession of the ball. It is clear that the person does NOT have to be in possession of the ball for the infraction to be considered a foul. Therefore, it would appear that if a foul had been committed in the box then a penalty would have been the correct call.

If the ref did not award a penalty then either he: 1) does not know the law 2) did not see the foul 3) did not think it was a foul 4) is biased (have to consider this although I would hope that this would never be the case)

Which one do you think it was? Do YOU think a foul was committed in the box? I didn't see the incident nor any replays so have no opinion. My discussion is strictly from a discussion perspective and NOT as a fan of a club involved.

[Paul Marin]

Tilla, I actually agree with Karl here . You either believe that Etoo fouled someone (in the box) or you don't...regardless of whether the person fouled had the ball.

My question regarding the law was to clarify whether or not the person fouled had to be in possession of the ball. It is clear that the person does NOT have to be in possession of the ball for the infraction to be considered a foul. Therefore, it would appear that if a foul had been committed in the box then a penalty would have been the correct call.

If the ref did not award a penalty then either he: 1) does not know the law 2) did not see the foul 3) did not think it was a foul 4) is biased (have to consider this although I would hope that this would never be the case)

Which one do you think it was? Do YOU think a foul was committed in the box? I didn't see the incident nor any replays so have no opinion. My discussion is strictly from a discussion perspective and NOT as a fan of a club involved.

Peter, my guess is Tilla is going to dodge responding by saying that it doesn't matter what he thinks as the ref has the discretion under the laws of the game to only call what he considers an infraction - BIG NEWS! Unfortunately, based on his other posts, he misses the point which is that there either was a foul or there wasn't (it being understood of course that the ref has the final say)...but there either was an infraction or there was not. He fails to understand that.

[Peter R]

Which is why I asked whether he thinks a foul was committed. It points to the competence of the ref.

[Karl]

Which is why I asked whether he thinks a foul was committed. It points to the competence of the ref.

His first position - in first post/lead thread - was the offense warranted a penalty save for his stated reasons of 'Suarez not interfering with play and not on the ball'. Yup...he agreed there was a foul as only fouls (within the penalty-areas) can result in a penalty!!!