Liverpool (A) | PL | Post Match Thread

brian the blue said:
You’re still not getting it.

imagine everything is the same, but Haaland isn’t there… Szoboszlai on his own would get back in time to stop cherki’s shot from going in.

That’s why Haaland and Szoboszlai are relevant. Either Haaland gets to cherki’s shot and taps it in, or Szoboszlai gets to cherki’s shot and clears it. The only reason it goes in directly from Cherki is because they both foul each other, preventing the other from interfering with the ball, so you have to take action on the fouls.
Click to expand...
But again, they've sent off Szoboszlai for a DOGSO offence

But he didn't deny a goal.
 
pudge said:
There's no mental gymnastics, just a fact.

Are you saying it's impossible for that to have happened?

The goal wasn't denied so ruling it DOGSO is mental gymnastics
Click to expand...
The ref doesnt give decisions based on what may have happened, there was two fouls on players involved in play, its that simple.
 
pudge said:
But it's not a DOGSO situation in the first place because fouling Haaland doesn't deny a goal. The manner of the foul is irrelevant, a shirt pull or a slide tackle.

It was proven that the ball was going in from Cherki so fouling Haaland doesn't change that. Why is it going back for DOGSO when he didn't deny us a goal.

Plus, again, it was given and the referee clearly saw both instances at the time.
Click to expand...
Of course it's DOGSO, pulling Haaland back stops him from getting to the ball and ensuring it goes over the line. He would have just tapped it in
 
Coatigan said:
Haaland is relevant because his foul stops Szobozlai stopping the goal. But the earlier foul stops Haaland having a goal scoring opportunity.

Once advantage is played, when Haaland commits the foul, I don't see the logic in taking it back to an earlier foul. They only do that when they deem no advantage has been gained.

If Haaland didn't commit the foul, and Szobozlai clears it, fine, the advantage isn't gained and it goes back to the origonal foul. But once Haaland fouls him, is that not the new point to take it back to?
Click to expand...
I'm still not having it. Cherki robbed of an halfway line goal. :-)
 
pudge said:
But again, they've sent off Szoboszlai for a DOGSO offence

But he didn't deny a goal.
Click to expand...
He denied Haaland the opportunity to score a goal into an empty net, as they both caught up to Cherki’s shot. Cherki isn’t scoring that goal without the fouls.

Haaland is scoring, or Szoboszlai is clearing.
 
brian the blue said:
He denied Haaland the opportunity to score a goal into an empty net, as they both caught up to Cherki’s shot. Cherki isn’t scoring that goal without the fouls.

Haaland is scoring, or Szoboszlai is clearing.
Click to expand...
Or Haaland ushers it over the line of course
 
We’ve won away at anfield for the only the second time in about 20 years. We’ve won a game that everyone expected us to lose. We’ve won a game that keeps us smack bang in the title race. We’ve fucking won a game!

Why is this thread being dominated by talk of advantage vs DOGSO. Even typing DOGSO makes me feel like a twat. Let’s not be boring bastards and turn into refs

I’d rather talk about Nico O’Reilly. What a performance from the lad. I wasn’t sure if he’d be good enough to break into midfield long term but I’m glad to say how wrong I was. Broke up the play brilliantly and there was a fair few times he broke the lines either with a run or a pass. He’s only 20 and just put in a performance that every midfielder in the league would’ve been proud of. There’s been a lot of talk about Bernardo’s replacement but I think Nico could be it.
 
citytill1die84 said:
I'm still not having it. Cherki robbed of an halfway line goal. :-)
Click to expand...

Where I am with it, is the goal either stands because the advantage was fulfilled, and the tussle was all one phase. Or the goal is disallowed for a foul on Haaland, without going back one further foul. Combining both, makes no sense to me.
 
Here's a thought...

Cherki blasted that free kick over the bar, game restarts with a goal kick and Alison hoofs it up field, one bounce and Salah latches on to it and buries it in the top corner... There would have been a fucking riot.
 
Gingers Dad said:
Yes you can. If both players were pulling each other's shirts they would have ignored it. It's up to the ref to interpret the rules.
Would you have the same opinion if it was 1 all
Click to expand...
Once VAR got involved with their forensics they were never going to let it stand. It’s another example of how VAR is ruining the game. I would be livid if that had cost us a win but the two fouls were not simultaneous. Best answer is to scrap VAR but that will never happen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top