Liverpool (A) Post Match Thread.

[Barry Conlons wig]

Stones is just weak.No way that was a foul.Shoudler barge.This isn't la liga

crock of bin dipping shite, it was a shoulder in the back of stones, foul everyday apart from at clanfield.

 

[blue by birth]

If you notice, Stones actually misreads the whole situation and gets attracted to the ball then realises he has over committed by about half a yard, which gives Firmino the opportunity.

Not a push for me, not strong enough from Stones.

He was barged in the back...it WAS a foul...can't believe how many people can't see that it was a foul.
If Stones had done that to pearly white in the area it would have been given as a penalty.
Shoulder to shoulder not a foul... shoulder/push in the back = foul play.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

If you notice, Stones actually misreads the whole situation and gets attracted to the ball then realises he has over committed by about half a yard, which gives Firmino the opportunity.

Not a push for me, not strong enough from Stones.

Exactly right TH. Good luck selling it on here though!

 

[remember arthur mann]

He was barged in the back...it WAS a foul...can't believe how many people can't see that it was a foul.
If Stones had done that to pearly white in the area it would have been given as a penalty.
Shoulder to shoulder not a foul... shoulder/push in the back = foul play.

Yep !

 

[meltonblue]

It could have been given as a foul, would have been a fairly soft one though. I was more disappointed that the opportunity was there for Firmino to get to the ball - Stones was running in the wrong direction to begin with and it was because he had to adjust his run.

 

[Metalartin]

He was barged in the back...it WAS a foul...can't believe how many people can't see that it was a foul.
If Stones had done that to pearly white in the area it would have been given as a penalty.
Shoulder to shoulder not a foul... shoulder/push in the back = foul play.

Didn't even look like it was his shoulder to me, more arm/hand. As I said earlier we've had worse decisions than that go against us, especially away from home and it's no excuse to how we reacted in the minutes after it. That was uncharacteristic of this seasons City who are normally unflappable, that's what we should be focusing on.

 

[cookster]

If you notice, Stones actually misreads the whole situation and gets attracted to the ball then realises he has over committed by about half a yard, which gives Firmino the opportunity.

Not a push for me, not strong enough from Stones.

50/50 for me but 100% agree in Stones misreading the play.

 

[Akira]

It could have been given as a foul, would have been a fairly soft one though. I was more disappointed that the opportunity was there for Firmino to get to the ball - Stones was running in the wrong direction to begin with and it was because he had to adjust his run.

Exactly. It's a soft foul, you can't count on refs to give it all the time. Stones could and should have dealt with that better.

 

[Cityfan]

He was barged in the back...it WAS a foul...can't believe how many people can't see that it was a foul.
If Stones had done that to pearly white in the area it would have been given as a penalty.
Shoulder to shoulder not a foul... shoulder/push in the back = foul play.

Personally I think it was a foul, but whether they are given or not often depends on the viewing angle of the referee, I don't think we can complain that it wasn't , it wasn't an egregious mistake by the ref but probably a small one.

 

[tornandfrayed]

Exactly. It's a soft foul, you can't count on refs to give it all the time. Stones could and should have dealt with that better.

A foul is a foul. There's no such thing as a soft foul just a foul - an infringement of the rules which is penalised by the referee giving a free kick. As I said in a post yesterday we have reached the stage where we accept the incompetence of referees as normal and try to explain it away with expressions such as 'soft foul' or 'out muscled'.