Jump to content

Champions League Final Liverpool v Real Madrid


Lex

Recommended Posts

Aw f**k off with that btw. Looking forward to Alan Lithgow's 35 'saves' next season then by that stack of nonsense definition. 
We all know what a save is and that, sir, was not a save. 

That's just a matter of the choice of wording though, I would agree "save" is a terrible word to use, but the intention is for it to be a catch all for any attempt to directly prevent a goal.

d0d6e21a88d410853179d165a92e814b.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Aw f**k off with that btw. Looking forward to Alan Lithgow's 35 'saves' next season then by that stack of nonsense definition. 

We all know what a save is and that, sir, was not a save. 

Craig makes a fair point, but i'm not convinced Valverde actually has a shot to be blocked.

That being the case, what we are then left with is a bog standard sliding tackle, which I don't think could be legitimately spun as a save.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

What is being overlooked in this discussion is the definition of "save". People are naturally assuming that it refers to a goalkeeper, but it also specifically includes defenders trying to block a ball which is going into or near the goal. In this case, that applies to both Konate and Fabinho, who are trying to block a shot from Valverde.

If it is a save, then the attacker is still offside, similar to if Allison saved a shot which rebounded to a player standing offside, something everyone would agree should be offside.

When Valverde plays the ball, Benzema is in an offside position. For the purposes of the offside decision, nothing that happens in between those incidents plays him onside again.


 

I don't think Valverde touched but even if he did Benezema wouldn't have been offside if he scored or took a touch then shot. 

Benezema is only offside if Valverde's touch brings him into play. It didn't then Liverpool play the ball three times. 

Edited by Detournement
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:


That's just a matter of the choice of wording though, I would agree "save" is a terrible word to use, but the intention is for it to be a catch all for any attempt to directly prevent a goal.

d0d6e21a88d410853179d165a92e814b.jpg

I'm not sure Fabinho was trying to save a shot. Wasn't he trying to stop the ball being played by the forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:


That's just a matter of the choice of wording though, I would agree "save" is a terrible word to use, but the intention is for it to be a catch all for any attempt to directly prevent a goal.

That's the whole of the defensive side of football then, if we're playing a choice of wording game. What is an indirect attempt to prevent a goal*? What is not very close to the goal, that would then magically remove this immunity? 

We can safely file this stack of nonsense in the bin where it belongs then, having been deployed not once in a high profile match prior to this back of a fag packet, VAR face-saving exercise. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

Spoiler

'Trent's attempts to cover back post crosses.

 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...