Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[Goodlove]

I think someone on here said it better than I ever could. Mard arsed grief monkeys

 

[Dialog]

 

[Lincolnshire Blue]

I still dont get why the arguments still going on, Robertson ducks out the way, if he stays standing then the ball hits him, so ducking is an impact on the play, had the shoe been on the other foot, we wouldn't hear a thing after 7pm last Sunday

 

[.db.]

Robertson was holding GD less than 2 seconds before the ball hits the net. There’s not a single media organisation or referee that has pointed that out & yet that’s the view the linesman has.

Clear & organised.

View attachment 174905

There are six players holding another player in that shot alone.

 

[Gesario]

Thats always been the thing with the cartel teams they are that used to being reffed in their favour they actually see being reffed fairly and within the laws of the game as a bias ref whos against them.

3-0 Fk off

 

[goatinho]

It's now 23.46 on Friday night 6 nights after the game and there is a full section on sky sports news about the dissallowed goal.....fucking hell

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

I still dont get why the arguments still going on, Robertson ducks out the way, if he stays standing then the ball hits him, so ducking is an impact on the play, had the shoe been on the other foot, we wouldn't hear a thing after 7pm last Sunday

Yep. Its as simple as that. Ive said the same thing to Dipper fans since last week when they say he wasnt interfering with play.....why did he have to duck then?

 

[Shirley]

It's now 23.46 on Friday night 6 nights after the game and there is a full section on sky sports news about the dissallowed goal.....fucking hell

Pandering to their subscribers….rags and dippers

 

[cheekybids]

There are six players holding another player in that shot alone.

Yes but only 1 that claims he’s not interfering with play despite holding the keeper & ducking under the ball.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

also just his presence in that area is interfering with the play, due to the flight of the ball donna doesnt know whether he is going to divert it or not so cant fully commit to the dive.

With the way the law is written, in order for it to be offsides, he needs to be interfering not just close. You can make the argument that Donnarumma's indecisiveness was affected by Robertson's presence, but Robertson did not physically interfere or visibly block the keeper's view of the ball. And his presence there came as a result of being locked up with Doku just before.

I would also stress that what made this so unusual was the nature of the decision. The 13 second delay before the "onfield" decision was made. Had the lino kept his flag down, then it's considered a goal and then the VARs would have a tough time reversing that and ruling it offsides in that scenario.

We can argue for or against it being offsides, but in this case the more controversial element was the unusual process at which they arrived at the decision. The referee or the VARs aren't supposed to just accept a lino's real-time view of it. They are supposed to determine interference themself, by studying the video from various angles. Apparently that's not what happened here. They did not do a proper VAR review to determine interference. They simply took the ARs word for it and confirmed it quickly.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I still dont get why the arguments still going on, Robertson ducks out the way, if he stays standing then the ball hits him, so ducking is an impact on the play, had the shoe been on the other foot, we wouldn't hear a thing after 7pm last Sunday

It was out of the keeper's reach either way. The keeper freely moved towards the middle of the goal as the header was coming in putting him out of position to make that save regardless of Robertson. Robertson could have been there or not and there was no way Donna was saving that header. Ducking the ball is not an action that causes it to be offsides, per the LOTG. In order for it to be offsides, he has to impact the ability of the keeper to physically play the ball, not just being close to the action or ducking the ball that is out of the reach of the keeper.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Ah, but did Robertson interfere with the movement of the opponent towards the ball? Stick to the main section of law 11, where Robertson was making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball. The only debate is in the word "clearly", and now that Webb has given the Liverpool complaint the bum's rush, who's bothered?

"Clearly" suggests a high bar. As in, not merely arguable but definite irrefutable no-doubt-about-it. I would describe Robertson's involvement as passive and doing his best to not interfere.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Robertson was holding GD less than 2 seconds before the ball hits the net. There’s not a single media organisation or referee that has pointed that out & yet that’s the view the linesman has.

Clear & organised.

View attachment 174905

If you watch it fully, he's put off balance by Doku. He's not "holding" Donna, he extended the arm briefly, possibly as a way to regain his balance as a result of being engaged with Doku.

This was before he was in an offsides position, so you can't count this as offside interference. If he put his hands on Donna, even briefly, while he was in an offside position, then OK. But this was before he was offsides and he was also engaged with Doku. All this should have of course been reviewed by VAR, rather than just deciding to go with the long delayed "onfield" decision without a proper review.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

All this should have of course been reviewed by VAR, rather than just deciding to go with the long delayed "onfield" decision without a proper review.

You seem to be giving some credence to this “long delayed ‘onfield’ decision” as if there is some conspiracy here???

The linesman simply says, “Robertson was in an offside position and looked to me to have ducked to avoid the ball. Is that what you saw, Chris?”

“Yes, he definitely ducked.”

“OK, I’m going to raise my flag for offside then.”

“OK, that sounds like a good call if he was in an offside position.”

Flag goes up and ref blows for offside.

Robertson KNOWS he was in an offside position and ducked, but VVD has already run to the corner flag and is taunting City fans as his teammates run over, so the cameras are all following him.

VAR sees no reason to overturn a well reasoned onfield decision, because the “interference” is a subjective call and Oliver just wants to make sure they are all seeing the same thing.

OFFSIDE STANDS!

Simple as.

 

[KS55]

You seem to be giving some credence to this “long delayed ‘onfield’ decision” as if there is some conspiracy here???

The linesman simply says, “Robertson was in an offside position and looked to me to have ducked to avoid the ball. Is that what you saw, Chris?”

“Yes, he definitely ducked.”

“OK, I’m going to raise my flag for offside then.”

“OK, that sounds like a good call if he was in an offside position.”

Flag goes up and ref blows for offside.

Robertson KNOWS he was in an offside position and ducked, but VVD has already run to the corner flag and is taunting City fans as his teammates run over, so the cameras are all following him.

VAR sees no reason to overturn a well reasoned onfield decision, because the “interference” is a subjective call and Oliver just wants to make sure they are all seeing the same thing.

OFFSIDE STANDS!

Simple as.

FA cup final: Soton 1 Rags 0. Bobby Stokes was offside; goal stands. If you look in the paper the next day, decisions are always clear.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Cry more you fucking mard arsed scouse rats. We've been fucked over at Anfield and at the Etihad so many times against these cunts we were overdue one in return even if I think it's subjectively not unreasonable to give Robertson offside.
Stevie starfish in the League Cup, Salah diving for multiple penalties and who can forget the Trent hand of god followed by a Sane offside and a Jesus disallowed goal. Get fucked.

 

[burning blue soul]

It was out of the keeper's reach either way. The keeper freely moved towards the middle of the goal as the header was coming in putting him out of position to make that save regardless of Robertson. Robertson could have been there or not and there was no way Donna was saving that header. Ducking the ball is not an action that causes it to be offsides, per the LOTG. In order for it to be offsides, he has to impact the ability of the keeper to physically play the ball, not just being close to the action or ducking the ball that is out of the reach of the keeper.

The only way Robertson doesn't affect the decision making of GD is if GD completely disregards Robertsons presence.
Either GD knows he's offside and the goal will be chalked off, or he is in two minds and doesn't know if Robertson is onside and will deflect the ball past him into the goal.
Because the refs also work on this assumption.
For the goal to stand you will have to prove the opposite.

 

[surprisedbygrass]

Pandering to their subscribers….rags and dippers

Repetition creates The Illusory Truth effect . See also 115 and most scams and populist politics . Here's a man with a plum in his mouth explaining it . Being part of a tribe of believers and emotionally triggered each repetition embeds the belief . Football is the perfect substrate .

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

With the way the law is written, in order for it to be offsides, he needs to be interfering not just close. You can make the argument that Donnarumma's indecisiveness was affected by Robertson's presence, but Robertson did not physically interfere or visibly block the keeper's view of the ball. And his presence there came as a result of being locked up with Doku just before.

I would also stress that what made this so unusual was the nature of the decision. The 13 second delay before the "onfield" decision was made. Had the lino kept his flag down, then it's considered a goal and then the VARs would have a tough time reversing that and ruling it offsides in that scenario.

We can argue for or against it being offsides, but in this case the more controversial element was the unusual process at which they arrived at the decision. The referee or the VARs aren't supposed to just accept a lino's real-time view of it. They are supposed to determine interference themself, by studying the video from various angles. Apparently that's not what happened here. They did not do a proper VAR review to determine interference. They simply took the ARs word for it and confirmed it quickly.

He ducked to let the ball into the net. That’s interfering with play.

 

[Manc Born & Bred]

I remember the weekend following the FA Cup final where Henderson should have been sent off. Six papers had a two page article discussing the decision with frame by frame pictorial evidence, there were four podcasts solely reliving the whole scenario, Sky Sports had a one hour special and Question Time devoted the entire programme to just one question, should Henderson have seen red?