Liverpool (A) | PL | Post Match Thread

Vic said:
They'd be wrong.

"If the referee plays the advantage for an offence for which a caution / send off would have been issued had play been stopped, this caution / send off must be issued when the ball is next out of play, except when the denial of an obvious goal-scoring opportunity results in a goal the player is cautioned for unsporting behaviour."
Click to expand...
I don't think that changes anything, because the ball next going out of play would have been when Haaland committed his foul, so it wouldn't have resulted in a goal.
 
Eaststander1 said:
McCartney likes both Liverpool and Everton ( and American football !) , but 'if pressed' prefers Everton because his family all support them.
Click to expand...
Think both McCartney and Harrison were both Everton fans, at least their families were.
Lennon with his ego was a dipper, Ringo apparently liked the arses!
None of them were especially fussed with football, had lots of other distractions, probably eight times a week ;-/
 
Liverpool have collapsed this season. They have gone from 60 points after 25 games in 2024-25 to 39 points in 2025-26.

Statistically this is one of the worst title defences in English football history. Leicester's defence was the worst in modern times (final points change -37).

We always had a decent chance of beating Liverpool. Still, a very good result, and a good performance. And most of all, we showed that we have a good mentality. We slipped at Spurs, and some fans killed the team. In reality, Spurs changed tactics, and City conceded a goal through foul play, and a goal through a fluke goal.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
But gets paid for saying what they want to hear ?

Is he really any worse than most of the "pundits" used by the tv companies ? Shrek for £800k a year ?

Steph Houghton, Izzy and Nedum are the standouts.
Click to expand...
None of the pundits managed to come up with this explanation of what Pep did.

 
Coatigan said:
The goal stands. OR, the goal is disallowed because of Haaland's foul. But without then going back one event further.
Click to expand...
That’s incorrect as confirmed by every ex ref discussing the incident. The officials got it right per the letter of the law which is what they’re judged against on their marking scheme and to hit their bonuses and get selected for future matches.

Whether they got it right in the spirit of the game is debatable but every serious ‘expert’ have all said the same thing. They’d like to have seen the goal stand but the officials got it right, grudgingly.
 
East Level 2 said:
They got round not applying the law at Wembley by saying the Haaland or the ball was going away from goal. It was only the case because of the deliberate handball outside the area. Basically they lied to keep it 11 v 11 for reasons best known to themselves.
Click to expand...
Yes, and I'm surprised that on Sunday they didn't say that because Haaland fouled Szoboslai and the goal was ruled out, meaning Szoboslai hadn't therefore denied a goal-scoring opportunity and wouldn't get a red card.
 
Coatigan said:
Except it is not.

The whole premise of the law, is subjective, when it comes to advantage beig played. The wording defines it as 'wait and see' and every word used is 'may'. The whole point is to make a call on whether the advantage played materialsed or not.

There are only two ways in this scenario the decision can be (subjectively) correct.

The goal stands. OR, the goal is disallowed because of Haaland's foul. But without then going back one event further.

The advantage played either materialises, or it doesnt. If the tussle which happens within 2-3 seconds is one event, then it materialises and the goal counts. If they are two separate fouls, then the advantage doesn't materialise, because he wastes it by committing a foul.

Anywhere else on the pitch,if advantage is played, and the attacking player commits a foul in the next passage of play, they don't then get the original free kick.

The whole thing is based on a discretionary view of whether the advantage was worthwhile, so the idea it even Can be 'by the letter of the law' is misplaced.
Click to expand...
So, working from that - the only 'issue' is that it should have been a Liverpool free-kick at the point of the Haaland foul, then? I haven't read every post in this thread, but as far as I'm aware nobody has argued that Szoboszlai's and Haaland's fouls were anything other than two separate incidents.

The red card would still have been applied, still no goal. So apart from whatever might have happened in the subsequent Liverpool 'Hail Mary' attack nothing else would change. Or am I mis-reading yours?
 
M18CTID said:
Anyone savvy enough to set footage of the Cherki pea roller disallowed goal and subsequent shirt pulls to the Benny Hill music? ;)

Still can't believe that shot ended up in the back of the net - it looked like it had no legs on it whatsoever when he hit it but it just kept rolling!
Click to expand...
Fred Durst likes this post.
 
Still buzzing since sunday, i think the come back make the win even sweeter, like the aston villa game to seal the title 3 years ago. im getting old for such a roller coaster of emotions.
i'm still convinced that we are our biggest rival, letting the opponents come back to the game,or making stupid mistakes. I dont understand the drop off in the second half, in every game. i understand the fatigue but we just somehow forget how to string a couple of passes, or slow down the game and intensity. we seem to just pump the ball back to them with our every touch. also the wall requested by donna for their goal, i wonder if this was missed in the game preparation, what to do in case they have a free kick around our penalty area.

anyway all in all, after such a win we are still in the mix, and make results at tottenham and against chelsea even more painful to take.
 
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