Liverpool (A) | PL | Post Match Thread

SCEtoAUX said:
I know I'm banging on about it but I still think that VAR should be compelled to take into account how a passage of play would have developed had a red card offence not taken place. No red card offence, Szlobodanzle gets nowhere near Haaland, foul couldn;t happen, goal stands.
Click to expand...
Yes that's the sort of common sense logic that would apply in Rugby Union. Unfortunately football refuses to learn from successful applications in other sports. Arrogantly believing they've got the perfect system, they lurch from change to change season by season, with no real improvement every time.
 
jockblue said:
Genuine questions here - does the ref have to actually signal advantage to confirm that is what he is playing? Or can we assume by him not stopping play immediately that this was his intention?

I know in this case he didn't because there was literally a couple of seconds between the advantage "being given" and the "goal".

Also: I'm sure Ive heard in the past that refs dont give advantages in a situation that would be a red card - presumably to stop the soon-to-be-expelled player from playing any further part in the move.... something that clearly played out yesterday.
Click to expand...

I looked into this for a podcast a few years ago, weirdly.

The protocol is that advantage can be played on a foul that would be deemed a red card and then a red card shown during the next stoppage. If the player is involved in the play before the next stoppage, then the ref is supposed to immediately stop the game, cancel the advantage and show a red card, going back to original foul.

However, in reality, it's extremely rare that advantage is played on a red card and then the red card shown later on.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I quite liked Slott when he first came to Pool. Calm on the touchline, no histrionics. Its a shame he has gone full Klopp now. Must be something in the air off the Mersey.
Click to expand...
I thought he was quite sanguine and complimentary to us after the game. Didn’t mention Salah until pushed by Sky and then said not everyone would give it as a penalty.
 
KS55 said:
VAR and plenty on here are obsessed with rules. The spirit of the game and the discretion of the ref are being lost. The purpose of VAR is to correct clear and obvious errors, not to re-ref the game according to a strict interpretation of the rules.
Rules serve the game not the other way round.
Click to expand...
Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools
 
A few things concerned me last night regarding some of our players game management.

- Ait Nouri had two options when he broke forward late on, Cherki and Erling. At that point in the game, going for glory definitely wasn't the right option.

- Cherki taking that free kick after the VAR debacle. Surely that has to be a short free kick to keep possession or a punt forward and out for a throw in deep in their half. Can only imagine what would have happened if the subsequent goal kick would have resulted in a successful attack and goal for them.

Then there is the complete opposite type of game management

- Bernardo grabbing that ball after his goal, no celebration, let's get another. That's what you want to see!
 
johnnytapia said:
I thought he was quite sanguine and complimentary to us after the game. Didn’t mention Salah until pushed by Sky and then said not everyone would give it as a penalty.
Click to expand...
He has mentioned it at every opportunity.

"If there is any incident we should talk about, it's when Mo Salah is one on one with the goalkeeper. Anyone who has been to this stadium in the last seven or eight years, that is a goal for Salah. Once again, the referee decides not in our favour. They have to do their job."
(BBC)

What brought Slot’s blood to the boil was the incident on 69 minutes when Mohamed Salah got in behind Marc Guéhi and felt the City defender pull his shirt just outside the area. It was a clear red card, Slot said. Guéhi got away with yellow. Slot referenced the two big decisions that went against his team in their 3-0 defeat at City last November – the penalty for Jérémy Doku, which Haaland missed, and the disallowed Virgil van Dijk goal. Why were they always going for City?
(Guardian)

Liverpool boss Arne Slot felt Marc Guehi should have been sent off for his second-half pull on Mohamed Salah during his side's dramatic 2-1 loss to Manchester City on Sunday.
Guehi was only booked over the incident, which occurred when the game was still goalless, because the officials deemed his centre-back partner Ruben Dias to be in position to cover.
But Slot felt Salah was denied a clear goalscoring opportunity and that Guehi should have been red carded.
"If l had to talk about one moment, it would be when Salah was on goal and Guehi had his shirt.
"Everyone who’s been in this stadium for the past eight years knows that if Mo Salah comes into that situation, it's a goal.
"So that is definitely a goalscoring opportunity.
"Out of hundred people, we could find 20 people from the PGMOL who would say it wasn't a red card."
(Sky)

The guys as delusional as Klopp was.
 
Johnnyblue7 said:
The Egyptian high board diving champion in action. It's physically impossible to be pulled backwards and end up falling forwards.
Click to expand...
I thought I had turned over to the Winter Olympics for a min and someone has shot salah by mistake during the biathlon -:)
 
Whisper it quietly but I think we are so close to being back. Maybe not all the time but close. Need to start playing second half’s agains and a run of wins is realistic.

Guehi is a brilliant signing and you can see a proper defender.

It’s on I have no doubt.
 
stan bowles said:
Put it up with 1981 and 2003. Great fightback win but that final decision is absolutely mindboggling. What if the title comes down to GD ???
Click to expand...
I dont understand why the big controversy over the cherki disallowed goal.....haaland is fouled but the advantage is played.....the ball still rolling towards the goal & then haaland fouls the defender before the ball crosses the line so therefore it goes back to the first foul & free kick city & red card. Although I can see why people dont like it but I thought it was the right decision in the end.
 
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