Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

[Gorton_Tubster]

Sheep wtf. Whaatever the media tell you to talk about, and its always lfc or utd. fuck em

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

Fucking hell it's been a week and we still haven't heard the end of it. The selective history Ryanair wankers

 

[Vic]

There's only one person going on about it here and he's got the wrong impression that Michael Oliver as VAR didn't look at it.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

He did interfere by ducking to avoid contact with the ball.
It is only being made out to be disruptive because its livarpool.
There is nothing unusual about the AR and ref talking to each other.
The AR and ref are miked up so they can communicate, the whole reason to be miked up.
VAR was not used because those are the rules.

It wasn't unusual for an offside flag to come up 13 seconds after a goal was scored and after the goal celebration had occurred?

When has that EVER happened before? When has it ever took that long for a lino to decide to put his flag up? This was highly unusual and it exposed a lot of problems to their decision-making process.

It has caused outrage because livarpool and their shrills will not accept the laws of the game, nothing else, City would not get this many tears if the boot was on the other foot, as we know to our considerable cost against them.
They arrived at the decision as they are the rules/laws.

Though it's subjective, the LOTG guidelines do not indicate that he interfered, which could only be seen by studying the footage in detail which would require a VAR review, which the assistant and the referee prevented from happening (apparently) by issuing such a delayed onfield ruling and then hiding behind that to avoid having to make a subjective decision via VAR.

I am not annoyed nor any City supporters I have spoken to are. It is livarpool and their shrills that are annoyed and beating the dead horse.
The only key component is Robertson ducking to avoid contact when he was in an offside position.
Refs making a quick decision, whatever next;-)
The only bollocks is that this is being peddled a week after the game, the game where livarpool were battered in every department and their £400k a week star was in the back pocket of a teenager.
Dry your tears and move on, it was the right decision, last week, last year and last century.
Goodbye;-)

Refs made a quick decision instead of going the monitor or allowing a review to occur. Nothing to see here, move right along. Meanwhile had the roles been reversed, City fans would be fuming about it too.

It's this endless cycle of VAR failing, creating victims and causing controversy in our sport that I fight against.

 

[the blue panther]

I think you've more than done it to death - move on, ffs!

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

There's only one person going on about it here and he's got the wrong impression that Michael Oliver as VAR didn't look at it.

So he did look at it? It's been reported that VAR didn't look at it because they weren't allowed to be involved. Well which is it? Did VAR look at it and confirm it or didn't they?

It seems that they did or didn't get involved depending on who you ask. And if VAR did get involved to confirm it, then what went into that? Given how quickly it was confirmed following the delayed onfield decision, there wasn't much time for the VAR to do what they would need to do to work out all the components. To see for example that the pushing and grabbing was before Robertson was offside, etc. In order to "confirm" such a decision a full VAR review would be needed, no? Which is why this is so problematic.

The impression you have is that Michael Oliver did confirm the onfield decision. That's what the Liverpool fan was complaining about, how could Oliver have confirmed that without giving it a proper look?

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I think you've more than done it to death - move on, ffs!

Happy to move on, but before we do, can we please establish what the protocol was supposed to be here. Did VAR or Michael Oliver get involved to confirm the decision? Was VAR allowed to get involved after that onfield decision was made? Surely we need to come to concrete understanding of what actually happened.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

It might seem that way, but I have good reason to be infuriated.


Lets focus on this part specifically. You said VAR reviewed it but couldn't say it was a clear and obvious error. Then why is it being reported that VAR didn't intervene because they supposedly couldn't due to the assistant's actions? And don't you see how problematic this is? This would mean presumably that for VAR to intervene and study the incident, the assistant couldn't have done what he did there because in doing so, it prevented VAR from intervening even though you and others believe that it did.

Virgil van Dijk header should have stood, rules Premier League expert panel

Key Match Incidents panel finds that the onfield call of offside against Liverpool’s Andrew Robertson after captain’s ‘goal’ was incorrect in match against Man City

www.thetimes.com

"However, even though the KMI panel has agreed that Robertson was not affecting Donnarumma enough to be deemed offside, it also found that it was correct for there to have been no intervention from the video assistant referee, Michael Oliver."

So you're saying VAR intervened and confirmed it, while the PL's own "expert" panel are saying they haven't intervened and they were correct not to!

The PLs panel of Owen, Fowler and Colymore. Its offside, Robertson made a play by ducking/dumming within 50cm of the ball. That's the rules like it or lump it

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

The PLs panel of Owen, Fowler and Colymore. Its offside, Robertson made a play by ducking/dumming within 50cm of the ball. That's the rules like it or lump it

You didn't address my point. I was not arguing there whether or not it should have been offside. My point was that the panel were under the impression that VAR did not intervene or couldn't, whilst some posters here are claiming VAR did intervene and confirmed it. Which is it? Did VAR intervene or not? And generally, should these kind of decisions by reviewed by VAR fully or do you agree that the onfield assistant should be the one deciding interference? I am happy to move on, but please address that issue!

 

[typical]

The full audio was on that mic'd up refs thing with Howard Webb. Oliver looked at it, gave a rational, then confirmed to the ref on field decision stands. Google it. You'll find it.

 

[Vic]

The full audio was on that mic'd up refs thing with Howard Webb. Oliver looked at it, gave a rational, then confirmed to the ref on field decision stands. Google it. You'll find it.

Scroll down to Sky Sports post on X:

Liverpool: Refs' chief gives verdict on Van Dijk controversy

Liverpool were left fuming after Virgil van Dijk's goal against Manchester City was disallowed, but Howard Webb defended the decision.

www.101greatgoals.com

Now can we put this to bed? Oliver had already had 15 seconds to look at it before he "intervened". Assistant VAR also agreed. So with Webb that's five referees calling it offside....

 

[bluemanchester]

It wasn't unusual for an offside flag to come up 13 seconds after a goal was scored and after the goal celebration had occurred?

When has that EVER happened before? When has it ever took that long for a lino to decide to put his flag up? This was highly unusual and it exposed a lot of problems to their decision-making process.


Though it's subjective, the LOTG guidelines do not indicate that he interfered, which could only be seen by studying the footage in detail which would require a VAR review, which the assistant and the referee prevented from happening (apparently) by issuing such a delayed onfield ruling and then hiding behind that to avoid having to make a subjective decision via VAR.


Refs made a quick decision instead of going the monitor or allowing a review to occur. Nothing to see here, move right along. Meanwhile had the roles been reversed, City fans would be fuming about it too.

It's this endless cycle of VAR failing, creating victims and causing controversy in our sport that I fight against.

I want this to be my last reply to you, in fact it will be because it seems like I am trading messages with a livarpool fan. You know the type always right and forever wronged. One last time, Robertson was in an offside position and then ducked to avoid the ball hitting him, the ducking meant he was interfering. That was why it was ruled offside. Everything else you mentioned is just noise, typical of livarpool football club and their shrills keeping it going to get favourable decisions in the future.

 

[typical]

Though it's subjective, the LOTG guidelines do not indicate that he interfered, which could only be seen by studying the footage in detail which would require a VAR review, which the assistant and the referee prevented from happening (apparently) by issuing such a delayed onfield ruling and then hiding behind that to avoid having to make a subjective decision via VAR.

I think you have misunderstoood what they mean by the term intervene.

The panel looked at the incident and in their OPINION the goal should have stood. However, they agreed it was correct for VAR not to intervene, ie get involved in changing the decision. Not that the VAR did not look at it. In other words the panel thought it should have been a goal but accept the decision was not a clear and obvious mistake. I assume because it was a subjective decision.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Scroll down to Sky Sports post on X:

Liverpool: Refs' chief gives verdict on Van Dijk controversy

Liverpool were left fuming after Virgil van Dijk's goal against Manchester City was disallowed, but Howard Webb defended the decision.

www.101greatgoals.com

Now can we put this to bed?

"Speaking on Match Officials Mic'd Up, PGMO chief Howard Webb explains why VAR did not intervene to overturn the decision."

Oliver had already had 20 seconds to look at it before he "intervened". Assistant VAR also agreed. So with Webb that's five referees calling it offside....

Howard Webb and the PL Panel said that VAR didn't intervene and Webb even explained why they didn't, or couldn't, which contrasts with what you're saying that Oliver did intervene and the AVAR also agreed. If they agreed or needed to agree to confirm the decision, then they did intervene and had the discretion to intervene.

The frustration here is the fact that they chose to go along the AR rather than giving it a proper review. And it's unclear why that happened in this specific instance when in other cases it has been handled differently.

 

[Mancity1980]

If that were the case, then they wouldn't have concluded that it was the wrong decision. I'm not saying you can't argue interference, but rather than the laws as they are written do not cause this to be interference.



You're reaction to that might be "they're bent" but there's a reason why they came to that conclusion. Now their other conclusion, that it was "correct for there to be no intervention from VAR" is BENT because if by the AR doing what he did, making that conclusion (that he saw interference) and communicating that to the ref, causes the goal to be chalked off and doesn't allow VAR to be used, then they've taken VAR out of the question instead of using it to make the correct decision!

Whatever happened to the referee’s decision is final?

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Whatever happened to the referee’s decision is final?

Well the referee didn't make his own decision here. He was merely told what his lino thought happened and he went along with it. Referees don't make decisions anymore, he was merely the conduit through which the decision was made.

 

[Vic]

"Speaking on Match Officials Mic'd Up, PGMO chief Howard Webb explains why VAR did not intervene to overturn the decision."


Howard Webb and the PL Panel said that VAR didn't intervene and Webb even explained why they didn't, or couldn't, which contrasts with what you're saying that Oliver did intervene and the AVAR also agreed. If they agreed or needed to agree to confirm the decision, then they did intervene and had the discretion to intervene.

The frustration here is the fact that they chose to go along the AR rather than giving it a proper review. And it's unclear why that happened in this specific instance when in other cases it has been handled differently.

Good grief. You still haven't listened to the audio...

Well the referee didn't make his own decision here. He was merely told what his lino thought happened and he went along with it. Referees don't make decisions anymore, he was merely the conduit through which the decision was made.

Who blew the whistle? I thought for a while that you understood the laws of football. The assistant signals for offside, the referee decides to give it (or not). In this case the AR said he thought Robertson was close enough to be interfering, Cavanagh hadn't got any reason to disagree; flag went up and whistle went simultaneously. Oliver and assistant VAR agreed, didn't even seem to think it was a close call.

Case closed - and anything further about how they came to the decision is wumming.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

I think you have misunderstoood what they mean by the term intervene.

The panel looked at the incident and in their OPINION the goal should have stood. However, they agreed it was correct for VAR not to intervene, ie get involved in changing the decision. Not that the VAR did not look at it. In other words the panel thought it should have been a goal but accept the decision was not a clear and obvious mistake. I assume because it was a subjective decision.

LOL Intervene does not mean to "change" the decision it means to decide to REVIEW the decision. If VAR gets involved that means they're taking a look at it and giving it a full review.

I'm trying to understand what went on here and what they are or aren't allowed to do in such a situation. If the argument is that they didn't intervene because they did not THINK that a clear and obvious error was made, i.e. because such decision are inherently subjective then moving forward, what would cause such a situation to get a proper VAR review? I would also point out we have been told that all Goals and Offside decisions are supposed to automatically be reviewed!

 

[mancboy]

LOL Intervene does not mean to "change" the decision it means to decide to REVIEW the decision. If VAR gets involved that means they're taking a look at it and giving it a full review.

I'm trying to understand what went on here and what they are or aren't allowed to do in such a situation. If the argument is that they didn't intervene because they did not THINK that a clear and obvious error was made, i.e. because such decision are inherently subjective then moving forward, what would cause such a situation to get a proper VAR review? I would also point out we have been told that all Goals and Offside decisions are supposed to automatically be reviewed!

Jesus will you have a day off, you'd put a glass eye to sleep.

 

[TheBeautifulGame]

Good grief. You still haven't listened to the audio...

Sure I have. What am I missing?

Who blew the whistle? I thought for a while that you understood the laws of football.

The whistle blew because a goal was scored.

The assistant signals for offside, the referee decides to give it (or not).

That's how it's supposed to work. That's NOT what happened here. The Assistant did NOT initially signal for offside. If he did, then there wouldn't have been a goal celebration! Instead he kept the flag down and called up the referee on his communication device to explain that he thought he saw interference.

The assistant didn't single for offsides until AFTER getting his approval from the referee. This was the cart going before the horse, a reversal / disruption of the normal process.

In this case the AR said he thought Robertson was close enough to be interfering, Cavanagh hadn't got any reason to disagree; flag went up and whistle went simultaneously. Oliver and assistant VAR agreed, didn't even seem to think it was a close call.

Kavanagh had no reason to disagree, that's what VAR is for, to confirm or deny the interference. But apparently VAR cannot review interference because it's too subjective, even though all goals and offsides decisions are supposed to be review, or so we're told.