jonsnow92:
Despite many suggesting the Welshman had interfered with play, replays showed he didn't. According to FIFA, simply running towards the ball doesn't amount to being involved in 'active play'.
The laws state that a player is not committing an offence by simply being in an offside position - or even in the same area of active play for that matter

Ramsey didn't interfere with an opponent, he didn't touch the ball, and he didn't ensure his side gained an unfair advantage from his on-pitch positioning.
FIFA summarise the 'interfering with play' law saying you can only do so by "playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate," which Ramsey didn't do.

This is Fifa rule been explained

Where did you get this from? It's so preposterous, I have to ask for link.

If your run affects the opponents movement, you are interfering. Clearly Courtois is severely affected by Ramsey's run. He would have picked up the ball otherwise.

Don't really know why,but I am feeling this defeat


I should be mad and disappointed but then the boys have done remarkably well this season

The trust in the direction we are going under Conte is way bigger than the taste of yesterday's defeat


Abramovich oya drop the cheque

Bimffo:


Why did Ramsey run after the ball and not leave it for Sanchez alone.?

Your team won, credit to you guys. But please always call a spade a spade.

exactly. Immediately he ran towards the ball, that was when the linesman raised the flag and that was the right call.

Ibeme:


Where did you get this from? It's so preposterous, I have to ask for link.

If your run affects the opponents movement, you are interfering. Clearly Courtois is severely affected by Ramsey's run. He would have picked up the ball otherwise.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/confusing-alexis-sanchez-fa-cup-10512935




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4548116/Should-Alexis-Sanchez-s-goal-Arsenal-vs-Chelsea-stood.html

There you have it

jonsnow92:
Despite many suggesting the Welshman had interfered with play, replays showed he didn't. According to FIFA, simply running towards the ball doesn't amount to being involved in 'active play'.
The laws state that a player is not committing an offence by simply being in an offside position - or even in the same area of active play for that matter

Ramsey didn't interfere with an opponent, he didn't touch the ball, and he didn't ensure his side gained an unfair advantage from his on-pitch positioning.
FIFA summarise the 'interfering with play' law saying you can only do so by "playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate," which Ramsey didn't do.

This is Fifa rule been explained

you just misinterpreted the rule.

In 2014 that man city won the league, there was a match against Newcastle when a goal was scored by Newcastle against Manchester city that was disallowed. The shot was taken and tiote that was in an offside position shifted from the ball for it to go into the net. The referee was correct because toite gained an advantage by deceiving the goalkeeper despite not touching the ball but rather moving away from its path.
In this ramsey case, he went for the ball; which is interfering with play.

Even if we are to overlook the offside issue; how can the referee claim to be in a position to see that ramsey didn't interfere with play, yet he was not positioned to see Sanchez's handball?

dopeJemi:


did you guys wait for him to join barca or Madrid before saying he is better? same way you can't compare barca/Madrid to Chelsea is the same way you can't compare hazard to neymar and Suarez

if you are saying barca/Madrid are better than Chelsea, then the core players in those teams are better than than the ones in chelsea

They have a certain Messi that have won the Ballon D'or a record 5 times o...

HotNigga:




Madam stay in the kitchen ma and watch more soccer there, come back in 3 years, maybe you will finally make sense .



God bless you Ma.

when did you start watching foorball? You must be one of those ''up barca'' fans

Greatihex:
you just misinterpreted the rule.

In 2014 that man city won the league, there was a match against Newcastle when a goal was scored by Newcastle against Manchester city that was disallowed. The shot was taken and tiote that was in an offside position shifted from the ball for it to go into the net. The referee was correct because toite gained an advantage by deceiving the goalkeeper despite not touching the ball but rather moving away from its path.
In this ramsey case, he went for the ball; which is interfering with play.

Even if we are to overlook the offside issue; how can the referee claim to be in a position to see that ramsey didn't interfere with play, yet he was not positioned to see Sanchez's handball?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4548116/Should-Alexis-Sanchez-s-goal-Arsenal-vs-Chelsea-stood.html

Graham Poll is a former refree,A Pro and writes for dailymail..Who do I believe like this?

Greatihex:
Arsenal played like people who wanted to win a final, but to say that ramsey did not interfere with play in that scenario is a case of someone telling himself a lie.
Surprisingly, this what goal.com is saying, that ramsey didn't interfere with play and that the referee was right to overrule his assistant.

that first goal was pure scam. From the initial handball to ramsey showing us some opera in the 18 yard box. Who does that? Theres a reason why epl refs are wack. This wouldn't have happened in la liga.

jonsnow92:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/confusing-alexis-sanchez-fa-cup-10512935




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4548116/Should-Alexis-Sanchez-s-goal-Arsenal-vs-Chelsea-stood.html

There you have it

Your links fall down on their own premise:

"Ramsey didn't interfere with an opponent, he didn't touch the ball, and he didn't ensure his side gained an unfair advantage from his on-pitch positioning."

Only a blind man would claim his side didn't gain an advantage by his position and run. Courtois was severely affected by his run. Even up to the final millisecond when Sanchez kicked the ball, Courtois thinks Ramsey is the one about to kick it. Without hesitating to adjust himself to face Ramsey, Courtois wins a straight foot race with Sanchez everytime and gets that ball.

jonsnow92:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4548116/Should-Alexis-Sanchez-s-goal-Arsenal-vs-Chelsea-stood.html

Graham Poll is a former refree,A Pro and writes for dailymail..Who do I believe like this?

Go and read all the comments in the comment section. All comments unanimously agreed that Poll is talking nonsense and he hurriedly submitted this article during the heat of the game, even before the match was over, without properly assessing the video.

BTW, why do we have Lampard in the BBC Studio if he cannot influence the narrative on issues like this. I can't imagine this happening to Manure and Gary Neville not causing a stink, ditto Carragher if the same happened to Liverpool

jonsnow92:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4548116/Should-Alexis-Sanchez-s-goal-Arsenal-vs-Chelsea-stood.html

Graham Poll is a former refree,A Pro and writes for dailymail..Who do I believe like this?

my brother free that thing, na them them. Ramsey gained an advantage through his position.
Do you know of the instance i gave in the 2014 match against Manchester city and Newcastle? Go check that out?

Chelseafan1:
Timbros, I am a god!!!!

Pedro out, Matic out!!!

Gooooooooaaaallllllll

I don't know why you are jumping about because Pedro was substituted.

He was replaced because he was tired. He covered more distance than all other players, hence the tiredness. It is only logical for him to be removed.

He was subbed in the 70th minute, not at half time that you would have done if you were the coach.

If you have the replay of that goal, you will see that the commentator agreed that ramsey interfered with play because his run made our defenders not to go for the ball.
You can watch the replay to hear it.

timbros:


I don't know why you are jumping about because Pedro was substituted.

He was replaced because he was tired. He covered more distance than all other players, hence the tiredness. It is only logical for him to be removed.

He was subbed in the 70th minute, not at half time that you would have done if you were the coach.

Lool, he wasted chances that could have made us draw that match, we scored immediately he went off.

That doesn't mean he is the reason we lost sha.

Again, moses clearly dived.
But, what happened to waving play on instead of destroying an interesting final with a little opportunity to halt Chelsea's improvement in the second half.
This is the same reason i didn't enjoy Chelsea's win over man utd in the quarter final.
Manchester United were clearly fouling hazard, but the ref should have avoided giving a red card in a big match that was interesting.

Chelseafan1:


Lool, he wasted chances that could have made us draw that match, we scored immediately he went off.

That doesn't mean he is the reason we lost sha.

Pedro wouldn't have been subbed if not that red card.

Before that silly red card, I was shouting for Moses to be replaced with Willian.

Willian or Pedro would have played that RWB role confidently.

Even at 1 goal down, I was confident that we will win the match. And then Moses strike!

Chelseafan1:


Lool, he wasted chances that could have made us draw that match, we scored immediately he went off.

That doesn't mean he is the reason we lost sha.

for me, even though we didn't play our best game, the only player that played as if he was forced to wear the shirt was moses. He was annoying; playing as if he was not told that there was a match that day. Who plays football like that?

For us to score a goal and create chances despite being one man down, had we been complete, I would bet my left yansh that we wouldn't have lost that game.

Greatihex:
If you have the replay of that goal, you will see that the commentator agreed that ramsey interfered with play because his run made our defenders not to go for the ball.
You can watch the replay to hear it.

Gbam!

But even if the goal was cancelled, Arsenal still played much much better than us and probably would have still won the game.

Their pressing no be here. Thumbs up to Wenger. He knows that our players don party hard this past week and hangover still hold them so he instructed his players to press like tomorrow no dey.

See sliding tackles coming in left right center. Imagine Per feeling like Maldini!

Mehn forget. Arsenal needed that game more than us.

UrennaNkoli:

that first goal was pure scam. From the initial handball to ramsey showing us some opera in the 18 yard box. Who does that? Theres a reason why epl refs are wack. This wouldn't have happened in la liga.

It will happen o

Refs are giving barca cheap penalties every week


The tins is that's refs this days are wack

timbros:


Gbam!

But even if the goal was cancelled, Arsenal still played much much better than us and probably would have still won the game.

Their pressing no be here. Thumbs up to Wenger. He knows that our players don party hard this past week and hangover still hold them so he instructed his players to press like tomorrow no dey.

See sliding tackles coming in left right center. Imagine Per feeling like Maldini!

Mehn forget. Arsenal needed that game more than us.

Goals change games and affect psyche. You never know how the game would have planned out if not for that refereeing error.

Lordemperoris100:
It will happen o

Refs are giving barca cheap penalties every week


The tins is that's refs this days are wack

show me a ref decision in LA liga this season that favored barca?

I am not too disturbed that we lost a final because I never expected to achieve this much this season. My target was for us to qualify for UCL.
I was with Ibime on us not having the chance to win the league for the next three years if we don't sign a top coach and that prediction is never absurd considering what was going on in Manchester then. I expected a lot from the Manchester clubs, but they disappointed. We achieved beyond everybody's expectations.

My problem with this lose to Arsenal is the controversy around it which I strongly think was a conspiracy. Finish!!!!!

timbros:


Gbam!

But even if the goal was cancelled, Arsenal still played much much better than us and probably would have still won the game.

Their pressing no be here. Thumbs up to Wenger. He knows that our players don party hard this past week and hangover still hold them so he instructed his players to press like tomorrow no dey.

See sliding tackles coming in left right center. Imagine Per feeling like Maldini!

Mehn forget. Arsenal needed that game more than us.

Arsenal played well, but arsenal many times have played well against us and still lost. I sure that if not for those referee decisions, Chelsea were going to at least send that game to extra time. Chelsea didn't play their best game, but they were firmly and always in the game. It was never like the 3 0 lose. Never.

Mancity closing deals of benfica's Emerson and Benjamin mendy

lordfalcao:
Mancity closing deals of benfica's Emerson and Benjamin mendy

Na that Benjamin Mendy deal dey fear me pass. Pep na real chequebook manager.

Ibeme:


Go and read all the comments in the comment section. All comments unanimously agreed that Poll is talking nonsense and he hurriedly submitted this article during the heat of the game, even before the match was over, without properly assessing the video.

BTW, why do we have Lampard in the BBC Studio if he cannot influence the narrative on issues like this. I can't imagine this happening to Manure and Gary Neville not causing a stink, ditto Carragher if the same happened to Liverpool

Do you have a link that shows the FIFA rule about this said Argument?.. Let's see what the rule clearly says..From my perspective Fifa summarizes the rule by saying interfering with play means kicking the ball or touching the ball or with an opponent..Let's see what the real rule says..As for Lampard the guy wan dey claim objectiveness..He doesn't know this pundits always show a soft side to issues regarding their teams..They show it albeit professionally

Greatihex:
my brother free that thing, na them them. Ramsey gained an advantage through his position.
Do you know of the instance i gave in the 2014 match against Manchester city and Newcastle? Go check that out?

My brother I know the instance you are talking about..Let's see what the real rule says..Then we can analyze.

Good morning Chelshit fans...


now singing...

Rob Holding...

You know...

Is better than Cannavaro!!!

Ibeme:


Na that Benjamin Mendy deal dey fear me pass. Pep na real chequebook manager.

the guy wan buy all the good things in life.. Shebi na 300 million dy drop for him..

iPopAlomo:
Good morning Chelshit fans...


now singing...

Rob Holding...

You know...

Is better than Cannavaro!!!

because una win FA cup una go still let person here word?

jonsnow92:
Do you have a link that shows the FIFA rule about this said Argument?.. Let's see what the rule clearly says..From my perspective Fifa summarizes the rule by saying interfering with play means kicking the ball or touching the ball or with an opponent..Let's see what the real rule says..As for Lampard the guy wan dey claim objectiveness..He doesn't know this pundits always show a soft side to issues regarding their teams..They show it albeit professionally

the rule leaves the opinion to the referee. The rule says "if in the opinion of the referee".