Liverpool (A) Post Match Thread

[richardtheref]

I'm not sure top level refs with VAR should be fudging decisions.

But I can

 

[richardtheref]

It is nearly always the case that minimal contact down the other end results in nowt being awarded. Do ALL refs stick together then, not just PIGmol?

No. Plenty of times I have pointed out when refs have been dreadful in our games.

 

[KPXBLN]

Of course it doesn’t matter.

Your point is?

My point is that to me personally it's not worth arguing about it anymore. A personal opinion that wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

 

[richardtheref]

Hang on, the laws of the game say that Salah is allowed to hold Dias off, but Dias is not allowed to clear Salah’s arm out of the way?

As they might say themselves, I’m norravvin dat, lar. It’s water under the bridge now, but strictly by the laws, Dias only commits the offence once he has been offended against.

It's similar to when a defender shepherds the ball out of play. Usually puts both arms out to make it more difficult for the attacker to get round. He is allowed to do this as is deemed to be in control/possesion of the ball.,

We will have to agree to disagree but did you note today we got 2 free kicks in midfield tonight for similar fouls.

 

[richardtheref]

And what would the offence be? Holding? Barely held him, and if he did, how come the diving bastard fell forward? A push? Don't think so! How about a trip 'cos yer can use yer hands to trip someone. I think that Diaz has been punished for 'touching' an opponent and I'm fucked if I can see that anywhere in the LotG. There is no doubt whatsoever that Salah embellished any kind of 'foul' perpetrated by Ruben by a blatant dive. It seems that the only people who don't see the dive are Dippers and refs. Would be interesting had The Bottler awarded the pen and booked Salah for the simulation.

The offence would be pulling his opponent. By your logic the award of the free kick would be dependent on the reaction of the fouled player. If they make a meal of it then it's no free kick. If they don't it's a penalty. I think a lot of people look at this with a City bias. If Sterling or Jesus

 

[richardtheref]

Of course it doesn’t matter.

Your point is?

It shows how well we are doing this season that we are arguing over this. Long may it continue. Now what about the foul on Raheem tonight. Anyone think that wasn't a penalty???

 

[CBD]

It shows how well we are doing this season that we are arguing over this. Long may it continue. Now what about the foul on Raheem tonight. Anyone think that wasn't a penalty???

No it was Ippon

 

[yankblue]

Don't understand the big deal about winning at Anfield, even Liverpool haven't managed it this year

 

[Chris in London]

Hang on, the laws of the game say that Salah is allowed to hold Dias off, but Dias is not allowed to clear Salah’s arm out of the way?

It's similar to when a defender shepherds the ball out of play. Usually puts both arms out to make it more difficult for the attacker to get round. He is allowed to do this as is deemed to be in control/possesion of the ball.,

We will have to agree to disagree but did you note today we got 2 free kicks in midfield tonight for similar fouls.

Exhibit A

6 of 1, half a dozen of the other

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Just spitballing here but maybe, nearly 200 pages in, it doesn’t matter anymore if Salah dived since we won 4-1. I dunno, just thinking out of the box here.

It matters. He dived; it's cheating; it could have changed the game.

 

[Paladin]

And what would the offence be? Holding? Barely held him, and if he did, how come the diving bastard fell forward? A push? Don't think so! How about a trip 'cos yer can use yer hands to trip someone. I think that Diaz has been punished for 'touching' an opponent and I'm fucked if I can see that anywhere in the LotG. There is no doubt whatsoever that Salah embellished any kind of 'foul' perpetrated by Ruben by a blatant dive. It seems that the only people who don't see the dive are Dippers and refs. Would be interesting had The Bottler awarded the pen and booked Salah for the simulation.

I touched on this in another post on this topic.

The offences that lead to a direct free kick or penalty are when a player charges, jumps at, kicks or attempts to kick, pushes, strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt), tackles or challenges, trips or attempts to trip an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.

In addition to these offences, a direct free kick can be awarded for the following offences which don't need to be careless, reckless or with excessive force: handball, holding an opponent, impeding an opponent with contact, biting, spitting at someone, throwing an object at the ball or an opponent or a match official, or making contact with the ball with a held object. (Law 12).

A push isn't specifically mentioned, but a player can be penalised for a push, and this is covered by the offence of impeding an opponent with contact. So for the Salah penalty, the referee must have been satisfied that the contact by Dias against Salah actually impeded Salah.

There was clearly contact between the two players, initiated firstly by Salah, and secondly by Dias, so we need to ask whether or not either contact impeded (delayed, halted, prevented) their opponent.

I think we can agree that Salah didn't impede Dias. Did the contact initiated by Dias impede Salah? My view is that is didn't. It did not slow him down in any way. Salah overhit the ball, and realised he could not score. That wasn't a consequence of the Dias contact.

Ask whether that contact could possibly have caused that reaction (legs buckling, arms being thrown in the air, a cry of anguish, and falling to the floor) and the answer is clearly no. Put these things together and you have minimal physical contact leading to an exaggerated, implausible and unnatural reaction. Therefore, it wasn't a penalty, and Salah should have been cautioned for using unsporting behaviour under law 12 (simulation - attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled).

I don't see how logically, under the written Laws of the Game, that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty for that incident.

 

[Gingers Dad]

Just spitballing here but maybe, nearly 200 pages in, it doesn’t matter anymore if Salah dived since we won 4-1. I dunno, just thinking out of the box here.

What would your opinion have been if it had stayed 1-1?

 

[Gingers Dad]

Exhibit A

6 of 1, half a dozen of the other

I wouldn't bother mate Richard is clearly on a wind up. He's hooked a few of us

 

[Chris in London]

I wouldn't bother mate Richard is clearly on a wind up. He's hooked a few of us

I don’t think it’s a wind up from him. A few people have said ‘clear pen’ or ‘stonewall,’ only to shut up when Salah’s push/fend off is pointed out. He at least has set out an argument.

 

[Sir peace frog]

I touched on this in another post on this topic.

The offences that lead to a direct free kick or penalty are when a player charges, jumps at, kicks or attempts to kick, pushes, strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt), tackles or challenges, trips or attempts to trip an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.

In addition to these offences, a direct free kick can be awarded for the following offences which don't need to be careless, reckless or with excessive force: handball, holding an opponent, impeding an opponent with contact, biting, spitting at someone, throwing an object at the ball or an opponent or a match official, or making contact with the ball with a held object. (Law 12).

A push isn't specifically mentioned, but a player can be penalised for a push, and this is covered by the offence of impeding an opponent with contact. So for the Salah penalty, the referee must have been satisfied that the contact by Dias against Salah actually impeded Salah.

There was clearly contact between the two players, initiated firstly by Salah, and secondly by Dias, so we need to ask whether or not either contact impeded (delayed, halted, prevented) their opponent.

I think we can agree that Salah didn't impede Dias. Did the contact initiated by Dias impede Salah? My view is that is didn't. It did not slow him down in any way. Salah overhit the ball, and realised he could not score. That wasn't a consequence of the Dias contact.

Ask whether that contact could possibly have caused that reaction (legs buckling, arms being thrown in the air, a cry of anguish, and falling to the floor) and the answer is clearly no. Put these things together and you have minimal physical contact leading to an exaggerated, implausible and unnatural reaction. Therefore, it wasn't a penalty, and Salah should have been cautioned for using unsporting behaviour under law 12 (simulation - attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled).

I don't see how logically, under the written Laws of the Game, that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty for that incident.

or to put it another way, hes a diving ****

 

[old blue]

We can do that in English too.

Klopparse.


See, it's easy.

Myopic manager....CyKlopps.

 

[Saddleworth2]

There were two decisions though, the salah dive and the non decision where Phil was pushed in the back when he tried to get on the end of Raheems cross. It looked more contact than the Salah penalty, the game was at 1-1 so yet another call that seeks to engineer a result.

 

[give it to gordon]

all this talk of salah diving i thought was going to stop once VAR was brought in. Ex players are saying its a dive, pundits are saying its a dive ( i know only a few weeks ago they didnt know the off side rule ! ) the only people who dont think its a dive are the ref's ! And thats the problem ref's have to much power, they are untouchable, they dont have to account for their actions, the VAR ref we dont even see !!.

Mike the refs up so we can all hear them, let them be interviewed after the match to explain how they thought salah didnt dive. Thats hear the refs discussing the incident.
As the refs just turned up ref the match and go home without any comeback how do we know the game is straight ?

Refs need to be asked why that was a pen, If it was given because Dias touched salah arms why wasnt it a foul before when salah tried to push Dias way. Why cant the ref be asked those questions ?
I for one would like to know the answer why a push on a defender by the forward isnt seen as a foul but a slight touch on the arm of the forward is a pen. Why can the game ref explain that after the match ?

Also even if the ref thinks its a pen why cant he book the forward for exaggerating contact ? Anyone can see that a slight touch like that doesnt make you legs fall away and both your arms fly into the air as if you have been shot.

I only played pub league but if that happen against me i would have puched the forwards light out , got sent off and banned, theres no way i could be a pro !!

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

. . . . . .

I don't see how logically, under the written Laws of the Game, that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty for that incident.

Neither do I, P. but over the last few seasons with every twist, change, 'improvement' and re-interpretation of the LotG we see incidents where logic and the 'written' LotG are completely ignored. Salah's performance in our area was such a case. And, of course, were Sterling or Jesus to find themselves in the Dipper area and a defensive arm were to touch them and they went down with arms flailing, they would be booked. I have not the slightest doubt.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

The offence would be pulling his opponent. By your logic the award of the free kick would be dependent on the reaction of the fouled player. If they make a meal of it then it's no free kick. If they don't it's a penalty. I think a lot of people look at this with a City bias. If Sterling or Jesus

There is more vigorous and robust 'holding' at every corner where the force exacted on attackers is way beyond what Salah experienced. Why do refs not give umpteen penalties in those circumstances because the LotG have clearly been infringed. I think too many PL refs interpret and re-interpret the LotG to fit specific instances. They do not apply the laws exactly in nigh on identical instance.