Liverpool (A) Post Match Thread

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

. . . . .
I for one would like to know the answer why a push on a defender by the forward isnt seen as a foul but a slight touch on the arm of the forward is a pen. Why can the game ref explain that after the match ?. . . . . . .

Refs won't have an explanation. How Salah was awarded a penalty for that little bit of very poor play acting is inexplicable. I would like to run a few incidents past Old Mother Riley and a cabal of PiGMOL refs and ask them "Why is that a pen and that one isn't? Why has he been booked for diving and he has been given a penalty? Do you really enjoy the business of refereeing or can't you get back in your car quick enough and fuck off home out of the way of genuinely 'intrigued' but too often pissed off fans?"

 

[The Future is Blue]

The problem with refs like Richard and the PL whistlers is that they have become celebs in their own minds....they interpret rules to make themselves more involved in the game ie the more they whistle the more their face is on the TV..they seem to want to outdo each other with the more outrageous decisions so it gets their names talked about among the pundits, media and us. It's backfired though with Dean and Mason who went a step too far! Supporters are never given any credit for having a view on football at all. I reckon a lot of us on here watch more football than most of the PL managers ever do....Gareth Southgate as England manager just watches games like the rest of us!

 

[give it to gordon]

The problem with refs like Richard and the PL whistlers is that they have become celebs in their own minds....they interpret rules to make themselves more involved in the game ie the more they whistle the more their face is on the TV..they seem to want to outdo each other with the more outrageous decisions so it gets their names talked about among the pundits, media and us. It's backfired though with Dean and Mason who went a step too far! Supporters are never given any credit for having a view on football at all. I reckon a lot of us on here watch more football than most of the PL managers ever do....Gareth Southgate as England manager just watches games like the rest of us!

a good ref is one , when the match has finished you didnt even notice the ref !

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I touched on this in another post on this topic.

The offences that lead to a direct free kick or penalty are when a player charges, jumps at, kicks or attempts to kick, pushes, strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt), tackles or challenges, trips or attempts to trip an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.

In addition to these offences, a direct free kick can be awarded for the following offences which don't need to be careless, reckless or with excessive force: handball, holding an opponent, impeding an opponent with contact, biting, spitting at someone, throwing an object at the ball or an opponent or a match official, or making contact with the ball with a held object. (Law 12).

A push isn't specifically mentioned, but a player can be penalised for a push, and this is covered by the offence of impeding an opponent with contact. So for the Salah penalty, the referee must have been satisfied that the contact by Dias against Salah actually impeded Salah.

There was clearly contact between the two players, initiated firstly by Salah, and secondly by Dias, so we need to ask whether or not either contact impeded (delayed, halted, prevented) their opponent.

I think we can agree that Salah didn't impede Dias. Did the contact initiated by Dias impede Salah? My view is that is didn't. It did not slow him down in any way. Salah overhit the ball, and realised he could not score. That wasn't a consequence of the Dias contact.

Ask whether that contact could possibly have caused that reaction (legs buckling, arms being thrown in the air, a cry of anguish, and falling to the floor) and the answer is clearly no. Put these things together and you have minimal physical contact leading to an exaggerated, implausible and unnatural reaction. Therefore, it wasn't a penalty, and Salah should have been cautioned for using unsporting behaviour under law 12 (simulation - attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled).

I don't see how logically, under the written Laws of the Game, that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty for that incident.

We all know the LOTG are applied subjectively in inconsistency, even in the same game. It's a classic 'game management' strategy, same as play on when we're running down a blind alley, or pulling play back for the foul when play on was he obvious option.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I'm sure no-one on this thread wishes to suggest Salah is a master of the dark arts.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I'm sure no-one on this thread wishes to suggest Salah is a master of the dark arts.

Strange how certain elements of the media use that very description for our Brazilian DM, but Saint Mo very rarely gets called out on his antics.

 

[Zenmanc]

It is desperately sad, and you wonder where the kids mum is. Exposing an impressionable kid to a idiot like that for 90 minutes force feeding him bile is not good parenthood.

When Gundo scored... "The same clown who missed the penalty".

 

[Bluemanc100]

I touched on this in another post on this topic.

The offences that lead to a direct free kick or penalty are when a player charges, jumps at, kicks or attempts to kick, pushes, strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt), tackles or challenges, trips or attempts to trip an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force.

In addition to these offences, a direct free kick can be awarded for the following offences which don't need to be careless, reckless or with excessive force: handball, holding an opponent, impeding an opponent with contact, biting, spitting at someone, throwing an object at the ball or an opponent or a match official, or making contact with the ball with a held object. (Law 12).

A push isn't specifically mentioned, but a player can be penalised for a push, and this is covered by the offence of impeding an opponent with contact. So for the Salah penalty, the referee must have been satisfied that the contact by Dias against Salah actually impeded Salah.

There was clearly contact between the two players, initiated firstly by Salah, and secondly by Dias, so we need to ask whether or not either contact impeded (delayed, halted, prevented) their opponent.

I think we can agree that Salah didn't impede Dias. Did the contact initiated by Dias impede Salah? My view is that is didn't. It did not slow him down in any way. Salah overhit the ball, and realised he could not score. That wasn't a consequence of the Dias contact.

Ask whether that contact could possibly have caused that reaction (legs buckling, arms being thrown in the air, a cry of anguish, and falling to the floor) and the answer is clearly no. Put these things together and you have minimal physical contact leading to an exaggerated, implausible and unnatural reaction. Therefore, it wasn't a penalty, and Salah should have been cautioned for using unsporting behaviour under law 12 (simulation - attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled).

I don't see how logically, under the written Laws of the Game, that Liverpool should have been awarded a penalty for that incident.

The real issue is why didn’t VAR overturn the decision and how did the same VAR team decide in a matter of seconds that Stones was offside? Because VAR has been weaponised and used intermittently to aid or punish teams. There is absolutely no consistency and I don’t think that’s an accident

 

[Chris in London]

The real issue is why didn’t VAR overturn the decision and how did the same VAR team decide in a matter of seconds that Stones was offside? Because VAR has been weaponised and used intermittently to aid or punish teams. There is absolutely no consistency and I don’t think that’s an accident

A good example of this was last season, when during the Palace v Liverpool game, a Palace goal at a corner was ruled out by VAR - after the referee had given the goal - for the slightest push that VAR had seen on the replays.

Later in the game, Liverpool's 85th minute winner was allowed - a prod in following a scramble at a corner - and not ruled out by VAR despite all sorts of pushing and shoving.

I don't have a problem with Oliver not seeing Salah fending Dias off, because both Dias and Salah's bodies were between Oliver and their tussling arms during the initial contact, and it took place quite quickly. But when you look at the replay from behind the goal it is clear that both were tussling with the other, and it was Salah who initiated the contact.

VAR is there to allow clear and obvious errors to be corrected, and I would accept that the Salah penalty was not clear and obvious, even though when you look at it closely it wasn't a penalty. But it does seem that the teams playing in red get the benefit of the doubt about when something is a clear and obvious error and when it is not a lot more frequently than others.

 

[ancoats]

love it hahahaha and the pep in the city song hahahahah