Your still missing the point, the REF awarded both goals, so therefore var overturned his decision on the Liverpool goal but backed him on the United goal so var went against Liverpool
OkIf Mane’s goal had stood, nothing that happened after it would have happened in the way it did as the immediate play after it was a free kick in the United box and not a kick off from the centre spot if the goal had stood.
Everything would have been different. United could have scored from the kick off.
We have no idea if it would have been 1-2 without VAR.
Correct liverpool wernt robbed. But it had have been City we would have been robbed .
It the way the agenda brigade work I'm afraid.
Fact is ref allowed both goals var disallowed one and Gave the other, all I hear on here is var is bent and wait until var and the dippers will be fucked, yet today var is great and called all decisions correct, people on here need to make their minds up, either var is corrupt or it is correctI think there's a difference between VAR disallowing for a foul, and disallowing for a handball or offside. The latter two have had goals disallowed this season.
Yesterday, there appeared to be a goal disallowed for a foul by VAR without an onfield review - the first I can remember this season (happy to be corrected).
All goals are checked,you don't know except the close ones that take time because it needs closer checking,the foul was within the build upI said in the pub, and I stick by it now, that if United’s goal had been disallowed by var I would have given up watching football.
Atkinson was 10 yards away from the incident with Origi, and had an uninterrupted view, so regardless of whether it was a foul or not I have no understanding of why that decision went to var to look at? Complete and utter nonsense.
Just like the Pen gift we weren't given yesterday after the media frenzy when Rhodri was fouled in the build-up to the Wolves goalIs anyone else worried they'll be gifted something against Spurs now, considering the media frenzy no doubt all week over the Rashford goal???
Fact is ref allowed both goals var disallowed one and Gave the other, all I hear on here is var is bent and wait until var and the dippers will be fucked yet today var is great and called all decisions correct, people on here need to make there minds up, either var is corrupt or it is correct
No one is confusing that, the fact is we have all been saying it's bent, but now today var is great and calling all.decisions correct . And making all the right callsMane's disallowed goal is a textbook example of a correctly disallowed goal under the new laws. It hit Mane's arm, Mane gained possession of the ball, then scored. Don't confuse it with Laporte's handball, which did not result in him gaining possession or control the ball.
Indeed. Seems to have been forgotten how Jesus’ goal should have stood as Laporte did not gain control or possession of the ball after it struck his arm.Mane's disallowed goal is a textbook example of a correctly disallowed goal under the new laws. It hit Mane's arm, Mane gained possession of the ball, then scored. Don't confuse it with Laporte's handball, which did not result in him gaining possession or control the ball.
I said in the pub, and I stick by it now, that if United’s goal had been disallowed by var I would have given up watching football.
Atkinson was 10 yards away from the incident with Origi, and had an uninterrupted view, so regardless of whether it was a foul or not I have no understanding of why that decision went to var to look at? Complete and utter nonsense.
Jiminez goal for Wolves disallowed by VAR was very similar to Mane's. The main difference was that the ref then gave the Wolves player a yellow card for an accidental handball!!!Mane's disallowed goal is a textbook example of a correctly disallowed goal under the new laws. I
The linesman disallowed the Raul goal, in fact he flagged for handball before the ball hit the net.Jiminez goal for Wolves disallowed by VAR was very similar to Mane's. The main difference was that the ref then gave the Wolves player a yellow card for an accidental handball!!!
Disagree. There's lots of subjectivity in cricket decisions for example in judging whether the ball was going to miss the stumps or not in an LBW decusion.I think cricket is not a good example as a comparison with football. In cricket, the technology can detect the actual outcome of the event that is being judged. It can tell if the ball was going to hit the stumps or miss. It can freeze the frame at the point the ball hits the wicket. It shows the bat or foot in relation to the crease. It detects the slightest touch of the ball on the bat etc. Football decisions remain subjective, apart from goal line technology, which is flawless.
Disagree. There's lots of subjectivity in cricket decisions for example in judging whether the ball was going to miss the stumps or not in an LBW decusion.
He was still ranting about the "foul" (origi diving twat "foul") apparantly, not the handball which he agreed with.I saw Klopp ranting like a deranged idiot after the handball goal had been ruled out, why ?
No much better in 13th ;-)it's not good for the product to have the rags in 14th position
You seem to badly missing the point that both var decisions were correct, origi was "touched" then dived, like a diving c**t, the ref played on because he thought he was a diving c**t, var didn't over rule because it wasn't a clear and obvious mistake (ref and var decided he was probably a diving c**t - moral here don't be a diving c**t).Your still missing the point, the REF awarded both goals, so therefore var overturned his decision on the Liverpool goal but backed him on the United goal so var went against Liverpool
...and gone on to score or setup a scoring opportunity, diving c**t.If Origi hadn’t dived he could have won the ball back in a tackle of McTominay