Onside.

Red.

What makes you think I'm not a Liverpool fan?

That ^

Can you be more specific please?

Had Sterling's goal stood (and to be completely fair, it should have done), then there is no guarantee that Liverpool would have scored a second. City could have still won the game. Liverpool could have still won the game. The game could have still been drawn.

No one will ever know what the outcome of that game would have been had Sterling's goal stood.

So no, the title didn't hinge on that moment. No season has ever hinged on one individual decision. Be it a goal that was incorrectly given offside, be it a goal that was incorrectly allowed. Be it a penalty that should never have been given. Or a penalty that was never awarded. Or any other variable that was ultimately never awarded, or was never what actually transpired.

Did the OP even stop to think for one moment that if he was to single out one incident, then in order to be completely fair, he should single out every other single incident that did or did not happen. Every other single decision that was or was not awarded?

Probably not. As fans, we're more likely to forget about the times that decisions went in our favour and remember the moments when decisions went against us. That's just the nature of football.

Ripely.

IMO opinion the result of a head-to-head between the sides that finished 1st and 2nd (and the contentious decisions therein) are more pivotal to the final league table, and are therefore more noteworthy than, for example, a clumsy Skrtel tackle that goes unpunished.

shortlight - it is of course a valid point you make - head-to-heads are more pivotal. But that doesn't really address the point I was attempting to make. Had Sterling's goal stood (and like I say, it really should have done), then the game after that moment would have been completely different. The passage of play that lead to Liverpool's goal (that was allowed) wouldn't have happened, and consequently, all the moments after wouldn't have played out the way they actually did.

My point is simple. Had Sterling's goal stood, then the whole game that played out after would have been different. City could have equalised straight from the kick off. Liverpool could have scored a second. The point is, either scenario is just as plausible. It could be that Liverpool won the game. It could just as easily be that City went on to win the game.

So the title didn't hinge on that moment. Even if we only take the head-to-head games into account. The only absolute fact we can go on is what actually happened. The rest is conjecture, nothing more.

To the op, when you post on another teams board, and then filter supporters of that board, expect that to have consequences.

Ripley.

I appreciate that it's not as simple as my original post suggested but I don't think my opinion is any more or less valid than those countless 'fans' who've suggested that Gerrard's slip was pivotal.

Admin2.

When the contents of responses are abusive and/or irrelevant I'm going to filter them. Particularly as my original post wasn't offensive or inflammatory.

but I don't think my opinion is any more or less valid than those countless 'fans' who've suggested that Gerrard's slip was pivotal.

-------------------------

Completely agree with that.