Media discussion - 2025/26

[bobbyowenquiff]

That's my interpretation. He was offside and made himself active by ducking.

That’s what Howard Webb said. Robertson facilitated the goal by ducking. It’s nothing to do with VAR it would have been offside in any era of football. The media narrative is PR-driven to take the heat off Slott. A totally manufactured stunt. So many fans are ignorant about how this sort of thing happens. Why did Slott reference Bernardo at Wolves? He was fed that line.

 

[69FACUPfinal]

That’s what Howard Webb said. Robertson facilitated the goal by ducking. It’s nothing to do with VAR it would have been offside in any era of football. The media narrative is PR-driven to take the heat off Slott. A totally manufactured stunt. So many fans are ignorant about how this sort of thing happens. Why did Slott reference Bernardo at Wolves? He was fed that line.

Re your last line ( I'm not savvy techy enough yet on here to quote individual lines!!), but yes I agree 100%. Who was it in the Dipper camp- or was it the media, because the clip of the Wolves Bernie goal ' incident' appeared mighty quickly....

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

Yet another Mary fucking Earps article on the BBC sports headlines site.

 

[rice10]

I think the Bernardo vs Wolves “offside” is a great measure of whether someone understands football. If anyone claims that it is the same as Robertson they either haven’t got a clue or purposely lying to suit their agenda.

It is quite simple, the moment Stones heads the ball Bernardo is not in front of the keeper. Not only that at no point is Bernardo stood in the path the ball takes. The other point often trotted out is Bernardo leaning on the keeper, well you can’t be physically be offside from a corner so that is irrelevant. If Bernardo was leaning on the keeper when Stones heads it then yes but he was long gone.

The trick that these people love to do as well is only show the still image from the side of the pitch.

To put it simply if these people think that Stones’ goal against wolves should be disallowed then they should think the Van Dijk goal should be disallowed.

 

[city2]

Yet another Mary fucking Earps article on the BBC sports headlines site.

What do you expect it’s international break only red stories to be printed unless of course the big one drops.

 

[Norbert D]

That’s what Howard Webb said. Robertson facilitated the goal by ducking. It’s nothing to do with VAR it would have been offside in any era of football. The media narrative is PR-driven to take the heat off Slott. A totally manufactured stunt. So many fans are ignorant about how this sort of thing happens. Why did Slott reference Bernardo at Wolves? He was fed that line.

Correct, 100% manufactured bullshit. SKY basically feed their sock puppets with their lines, there was no controversy, it was an obvious decision. Even Web has come out and explained something he knows needs no explanation. SKY set the narrative and BBC etc all follow suit.

Man City vs Liverpool: Disallowed Virgil van Dijk goal backed by Howard Webb

Howard Webb insists it was "not unreasonable" for Virgil van Dijk's goal to be disallowed for offside against Manchester City

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Here is my take for what it's worth.

Fuck the scouse cunts. City city city

 

[City Raider]

I think the Bernardo vs Wolves “offside” is a great measure of whether someone understands football. If anyone claims that it is the same as Robertson they either haven’t got a clue or purposely lying to suit their agenda.

It is quite simple, the moment Stones heads the ball Bernardo is not in front of the keeper. Not only that at no point is Bernardo stood in the path the ball takes. The other point often trotted out is Bernardo leaning on the keeper, well you can’t be physically be offside from a corner so that is irrelevant. If Bernardo was leaning on the keeper when Stones heads it then yes but he was long gone.

The trick that these people love to do as well is only show the still image from the side of the pitch.

To put it simply if these people think that Stones’ goal against wolves should be disallowed then they should think the Van Dijk goal should be disallowed.

The unsurprising thing about the whole episode is that Slot was given the Wolves intel during the match. They must have another database of all our ‘dodgy’ goals. Obsessed!

 

[the blue panther]

Here is my take for what it's worth.

Fuck the scouse cunts. City city city

Exactly!
And my take:-
1. It was the correct decision without any doubt at all.
2. It makes up a little for the very wrong VAR decision given against us on the Bournemouth goal from the week before.
So, fuck 'em all!

 

[Francis Crawford]

I think the Bernardo vs Wolves “offside” is a great measure of whether someone understands football. If anyone claims that it is the same as Robertson they either haven’t got a clue or purposely lying to suit their agenda.

It is quite simple, the moment Stones heads the ball Bernardo is not in front of the keeper. Not only that at no point is Bernardo stood in the path the ball takes. The other point often trotted out is Bernardo leaning on the keeper, well you can’t be physically be offside from a corner so that is irrelevant. If Bernardo was leaning on the keeper when Stones heads it then yes but he was long gone.

The trick that these people love to do as well is only show the still image from the side of the pitch.

To put it simply if these people think that Stones’ goal against wolves should be disallowed then they should think the Van Dijk goal should be disallowed.

The reason Bernardo did not impact the goal at the wolves game is because the on field decision was ‘goal’ var then checked it , first for an off side against Bernardo (which he was , and also was he impacting ?,which is down to the on field decision makers)

This made var ask the ref to check the monitor and he correctly enforced his decision that not only was it a goal but the position of Bernardo had no impact on it

On Sunday the on field decision was ‘offside’ so var checked to see if it was offside ( it was ,and was Robertson impacting the resulting goal ? He was ) result on field decision up held as there is nothing to suggest a ‘ clear and obvious’ mistake was made by the on field officials,

Even if they thought (var ) that a clear and obvious mistake had been made, it would still have been up to the on field Decision makers to change their mind after watching the replay , var is meant to assist the ref not arbitrate .

Hope that clears it up !!

Ps .
Normally , if it’s Liverpool , none of the above applies !

 

[Boo or Boo-urns]

The unsurprising thing about the whole episode is that Slot was given the Wolves intel during the match.

Arnold Slopp is a bigger football voyeur than Wenger ever was. Blaming his recent loss against the rags because the rags didn't start with Sesko in their current team-line up like they did previously. Also Slopp was spouting off another bout of voyeurism in the media citing the strength of City's and Chelsea's bench players at the same time as his team were getting dumped out by Crystal Palace in the Carabao cup.

I suspect the dipper media are priming Slopp [questions posed in the form of an answer] with ready-made excuses, deflections and reminders of previous match VAR incidents as Slopp prepares his post match voyeurisms.

 

[hertsblue]

Yet another Mary fucking Earps article on the BBC sports headlines site.

If she had the exact same career but played for us and not the Rags, she would be just another goalkeeper. No book, no PR by the BBC etc. its just they are obsessed by anything Rag related.

 

[hertsblue]

The Champions League game was two offside decisions, Salah for their goal and Jesus wrongly given offside for our goal. The third outrage iirc was a blatant stonewall foul in the area on Sterling. Unbelievable decision
Then Sane given offside in the return when Milner had headed it back
Luhoz at his bent worst. Pep even got a ban for it
A four goal swing in their favour over two legs. Scandalous refereeing
One that sticks in the craw is Adam knee high on Barry in the box in that league cup semi final years ago
They subbed him shortly after as he was already on a card, they knew it was a penalty

That ( The CL 2 legs) were one of the most blatantly corrupt games ever. Right up there with the Rags v Arsenal with Riley reffing. Still wish we refused to play the 1st leg after the attack on our coach and showed the World the Dippers behaviour

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Arnold Slopp is a bigger football voyeur than Wenger ever was. Blaming his loss against the rags because the rags didn't start with Sesko in their team-line up. Also Slopp was spouting off another bout of voyeurism in the media citing he noticed the strength of City's and Chelsea's bench players at the same time as his team were getting dumped by Crystal Palace in the Carabao cup.

The dipper media are priming Slopp with excuses and previous match VAR incidents as he gives his post match voyeurisms.

Surely that’s playing the victim card?

 

[Platt Lane 59]

The unsurprising thing about the whole episode is that Slot was given the Wolves intel during the match. They must have another database of all our ‘dodgy’ goals. Obsessed!

Remember his quote on City's "first team bench", when his team had just got hammered by Palace in the League Cup ?
He has certainly learnt the Klopp songbook of tenuous excuses, yet he hasn't been called out as a bad loser - wonder why ?

 

[rice10]

The unsurprising thing about the whole episode is that Slot was given the Wolves intel during the match. They must have another database of all our ‘dodgy’ goals. Obsessed!

I don’t think of Liverpool as a football club with fans, I think of it as a cult with followers. They can never at any point be self critical. Anything with a Liverpool badge is great and they end up as a result having incidents like the Luis Suarez t-shirts.

Arne Slot last season (to be fair probably because he was winning) came across to me quite well but the longer you stay in the scouse cult the more deranged you become. Please see Brendan Roger’s and Jurgen Klopp for other managers who drank the koolaid hahahaha.

I reckon you’re right and they probably have all these positive city decisions filed under type so it’s easy to access.

Phil Foden walks aggressively to the ref but doesn’t get sent off, they’d no doubt find the clip of Kevin Horlock against Bournemouth saying that before Michael Oliver reffed a charity game in Abu Dhabi that would have been a sending off.

 

[kurious oranj]

He was a sensational player but there’s not a chance he’d have a career in this day and age.

He's chairman of the Greeter's Guild nowadays

 

[Spurs quarter 69]

Yet another Mary fucking Earps article on the BBC sports headlines site.

Absolutely nauseating piece on Football Focus ,Saturday lunch about Mary Earps accompanied by library pictures of Manchester. Madame Earps waxing lyrical about returning to OT. Sorry dear but didn't ply your trade at Leigh Sports Village in the Borough of Wigan. A long way from OT and Manchester, having said that wish you luck for PSG against the rags slags, but please don't brown nose your former employers.

 

[Merlin's Magic]

Yet another Mary fucking Earps article on the BBC sports headlines site.

She abandoned her national team and retired as soon as she lost her starting place and then wrote a book about it, what a role model for little girls!

 

[Pubteam Lomas]

She abandoned her national team and retired as soon as she lost her starting place and then wrote a book about it, what a role model for little girls!

Spot on.

"So what message are you trying to get across in your book, Mary?"
"Err, if you don't get your own way, then give up, quit and blame others!"