jollylescott
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,765
Can’t believe this Liverpool team beat us.
Was getting a fire going in the log burner at start of the match. Was Chelsea's goal offside or are the twats out to help dippers?
They were both onside for the shot that hit the post.Yep. Its clearly off. Not controversial at all, albeit an unusual type of offside to see
Agree with the first part but I’d rather the barcodes stay in ahead of these teoThis is one of the very rare times I’d be happy for the Rags to win. Also, I‘d like to see Palace turn Newcastle over.
It's a wonder it hasn't been removed on the grounds of, well LiverpoolNice bit of trolling by someone in the BBC thread…
View attachment 66646
It was definitely offside. Nothing controversial about itWas getting a fire going in the log burner at start of the match. Was Chelsea's goal offside or are the twats out to help dippers?
Looked offside to me but I honestly don’t understand the laws anymoreWas getting a fire going in the log burner at start of the match. Was Chelsea's goal offside or are the twats out to help dippers?
What… Havertz foot is closer to the goal when that shot is taken, that then goes on to hit the post and rebound to Havertz. Offside all dayThey were both onside for the shot that hit the post.
And Ward said he's done it by balancing the books as well.Just in case you missed it by the commentary team the last 7 times in the last 15 minutes, this is Bingo's 1000th game as a manager